§ Lord Harris of Greenwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish in the Official Report the view of each of the organisations consulted on the proposal to give the courts the power to impose a curfew against offenders.
§ Lord EltonDuring the debate on the Third Reading in another place of the Criminal Justice Bill on 12th May, my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State indicated that the Government had concluded that a curfew order would not be workable as a separate penalty for young offenders, but that they would be considering instead whether provision might be made in the Bill for a curfew for juveniles within the framework of the supervision order. The Government have 887WA received the views of the following bodies on the proposal:
- Association of Directors of Social Services
- Association of County Councils
- Association of Metropolitan Authorities
- British Association of Social Workers
- Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees
- Conference of Chief Probation Officers
- Greater London Council
- Justices' Clerks' Society
- Magistrates' Association
- National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
- New Approaches to Juvenile Crime
- National Association of Probation Officers
- National Intermediate Treatment Federation
- National Youth Bureau.
The views of each body (often expressed at some length) would be difficult to summarise within the confines of a reply to a Question without risk of distortion. But the general response was that a curfew power was better incorporated into the framework of a supervision order rather than as a separate order. The Magistrates' Association strongly supported the proposal. Most of the other bodies expressed reservations of varying degrees of strength but, while some expressed outright opposition, others saw value in a curfew requirement as part of a "package" of activities.