VARIATION AND DISCHARGE OF SUPERVISION ORDERS (Hansard, 9 June 1969)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 15, line 22, at end insert: (2) If on an application in pursuance of the preceding subsection, in a case where the supervised person has attained the age of seventeen and the supervision order was not made by virtue of section 1 of this Act or on the occasion of the discharge of a care order, it appears to the court appropriate to do so it may proceed as if the application were in pursuance of subsection (3) or, if it is made by the supervisor, in pursuance of subsections (3) and (4) of this section and as if in that subsection or those subsections, as the case may be, the word 'seventeen' were substituted for the word 'eighteen' and the words 'a magistrates' court other than' were omitted.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment we can also discuss Government Amendment No. 69.

§ Mr. Morgan
These two Amendments have been put down to meet a point raised in Standing Committee on 24th April on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) to leave out subsection (3). A number of hon. Members argued 1142 that, where a supervised person has attained the age of 17, it should be possible for the court to impose a sanction for breach of a requirement of the supervision order. It was urged that otherwise there would be inconsistency between the treatment of a 17 year old under supervision and a 17 year old on probation.
We undertook to look at the matter again, although I pointed out that I did not hold out hope that a change could be made. There are difficulties in the way of providing that subsection (3) shall apply in all cases after the 17th birthday. First, it would not be appropriate in a case where the supervision order had been made for reasons other than an offence. Secondly, it would not be right to exclude the possibility of adding intermediate treatment or the possibility of substituting a care order.
However, the Government have looked at the matter again and have concluded that it would be possible to provide for an overlap between subsections (1) and (3) between the 17th and 18th birthdays in cases where the supervision order was made in criminal proceedings. Amendment No. 63 so provides and Amendment No. 69 provides that, if a supervised person attains the age of 17 or 18 while an application to juvenile court is pending, the court shall deal with the application as if he had not attained that age. This is because it would not be right for the court's powers to be affected by an adjournment.

§ Mr. Miscampbell
I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 16, line 4, at end insert: (3) In any proceedings in a magistrates' court under subsection (2) of this section the same limitations shall apply on the publication of the particulars of the supervised person as if the said proceedings were in the juvenile court. This is a short but important point dealing with the publication of names when a supervision order goes on beyond the age of 18. That can arise in a situation where a young person aged 16 to 17 is put under a supervision order. It is possible for the order to go on past the age of 18 and a discharge of the order has to be obtained not in juvenile court but in the magistrates' court.
The Government promised to look at this again when the point was raised 1143 in Standing Committee and one feels disappointed that no Government Amendment has been put down to deal with it. But I understand the difficulties of dealing with the matter because one is always reluctant to ask for restrictions on reporting, particularly as in these circumstances it would be in that instance where there is a restriction on the reporting on an adult in the magistrates' court, and we are all familiar with the difficulties which arise when both juveniles and adults are up together. While the court can exercise its discretion and say that the juvenile's name is not to be disclosed, it often does not do so.
None the less, this circumstance is rather different from any other and may be unique because the young person will have received his supervision order while a juvenile, under the age of 18, when not a word could be said about it. On the other hand, if he does well and it comes to the time for his discharge after the age of 18, publication is possible. All we seek to do in the Amendment is to impose the same right of discretion upon the magistrates' courts as to publication as the juvenile court will have.
I fully concede that it is very unlikely that in large metropolitan areas the names of those who have obtained a discharge from supervision orders will be published in the newspapers, but I fear that the situation may be very different in small country districts and just as much damage may be done to a young man who had done rather well and who was getting his discharge if there were publication of the discharge as would have been done if in the original instance his name had been published when he was put on a supervision order. It is not possible in the juvenile court, but it is possible later.
Whether the Amendment does it or not, I hope that the Government will find some way to protect a young man or girl in these circumstances when he or she may have done rather well and the order is being discharged.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
The argument for the Amendment deserves sympathy, although it is fair to say that this is not a matter of earth-shaking importance. At present, there is no restriction on the 1144 reporting of the appearance in court of those aged 17 and upwards, but once one makes any move from the present fairly clear cut position of the publication of the names of juveniles who appear in court, it is not clear where one should stop.
However, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be right to accept the Amendment. Therefore, the hon. Member need feel no disappointment on account of the Government's not having put down an Amendment. That has allowed full scope for the hon. Member's own legislative faculties.

§ Mr. Miscampbell
I am obliged to the Government. I am glad that there have been second thoughts. Although this is only a minor matter, the change is well worth while.

§ Mr. Goodhart
I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 16, line 6, leave out 'eighteen', and insert 'fourteen'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we are to take Amendment No. 66, in page 16, line 7, leave out 'magistrates' court other than a'. and Amendment No. 67, in page 16, line 8, after 'court', insert or in the case of a person who has attained the age of eighteen a magistrates' court".

§ Mr. Goodhart
Under the Bill Children's officers will have to deal with some of the most rebellious, pig-headed and contrary young people in the country. Most delinquent young people realise clearly the powers that probation officers have under probation orders. Some are likely to be less impressed by the authority of children's officers under a supervision order. There may well be an increase in the number of young people who refuse to obey their supervisor and who just do not turn up for appointments.
A supervisor has power to take children or young people into court and into care or to ask for powers to remove them wholly from their homes. The young delinquent will know perfectly well that unless he is unspeakably bad in his conduct the supervisor has no effective weapon short of this absolute deterrent. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow the court to impose fines of up to £25 or to make an attend- 1145 ance centre order on those who are aged between 14 and 17, not just 18.
The Government concede that a fine may be the right way to deal with someone who has reached the age of 18, but many people of 17 and 16 are already earning substantial sums. On financial grounds there seems no very good reason for drawing an absolute line at the age of 18. Young people of 14 and 15 would not be earning large sums, but they are very money conscious and a comparatively small fine could have an important deterrent effect. I do not see why recalcitrant young people should not be brought into line by pressure on their pockets. The Government will find that it will be important to see that supervisors should be given disciplinary powers which can be used.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
This is a repeat of Amendments which were tabled in Committee and discussed on 24th April. They were withdrawn when I undertook to consider the matter further before Report. I gave that undertaking in terms which made it clear that we were aware of considerable difficulties in our path and that we were not really too hopeful of finding an improved solution. The result of this undertaking was our Amendment 63. The Government Amendment goes in the same direction as the Opposition Amendment, but not quite so far. The Government propose that the power of the court under Clause 15(3) should be available from the age of 17 upwards, instead of, as under the Bill, at the age of 18. The Opposition propose that these powers should be available from the age of 14 upwards.
The debate in Committee revealed that there were certain misunderstandings over the issues involved. These were dealt with in Committee. I will mention three of the main points. First, it is not the case that without the Opposition's Amendment supervisors and courts would be powerless to take any action if a supervised person failed to comply with the directions of the supervision order. Under Clause 15(1), the court has wide powers to vary a supervision order—for instance, by adding or extending a requirement under Clause 12(2) 1146 relating to intermediate treatment. The court also has power, if need be, to make a care order in substitution for that supervision order.
Secondly, these Amendments are not really concerned with cases where the supervised person commits an offence. If he does this, and has reached the age of 14, and court proceedings for the offence are called for, it would be possible to prosecute him in accordance with the new Clause discussed earlier today. The court will then have available to it all the powers available under both Clause 15(1) and (3).
Thirdly, in effect, the only power available under Clause 15(3), but not under subsection (1), is the power to impose a fine. The whole issue between us, therefore, is a fairly narrow one.
There are two questions. First, should the courts have power to fine for breach of a requirement of a supervision order from the age of 14 upwards or only from 17? Secondly, should the power to fine, from whatever age it starts, cover all supervised persons, as the Opposition propose, or only those placed under supervision for an offence, as the Government propose? The Government have no hesitation in saying that it would be quite inappropriate to fine a person who was put under supervision because, for instance, he was in moral danger or had been neglected. Possibly, the Opposition do not intend this. The essential issue, therefore, concerns the question of age.
In the debate in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) suggested that a variation order under Clause 15(1) was more cumbersome than proceedings under subsection (3). I believe that that is a misconception. In either case, the proceedings involve exactly the same things. The supervisor takes the supervised person before the court, the court listens to what they both have to say, obtains any further information that it wants and then decides what order, if any, to make. The procedure is equally straightforward in each case and it is wrong to suppose that Clause 15(1) is any the more cumbersome. For that reason, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.