Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Across the whole breadth of the criminal law, it is a matter of public policy which is agreed to by all parties and in accordance with the covenant on the Rights of the Child, to which this country is a signatory, that we have thought it right to protect young people up to the age of 18, so that if a person is charged even with the most serious offence of murder, his identity will not be released. That is the policy that this country has adopted. We are now introducing a completely new concept. The breach of this civil order will lead to a criminal offence, and we are lowering the standard for this civil order. We are saying to young people: ““You should be in the newspaper. Everybody should know all about you. If you want to make a noise or kick a dustbin””—to get back to our earlier debate—““or if you want to be disorderly in a way that affects others, then you can expect your name and photograph to be published””. Is it really that serious an issue that we have to go against the whole trend of public policy in this country of trying to protect young people until the age of 18? What is the reality, asked the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We probably all have different concepts of reality. Is it really the truth that packs of 16 to 18 year-olds are going into public houses, getting drink to which they are not entitled and running riot? My own view of reality—and I am fairly close to the ground in my part of the world—is that it is people with a bit of money in their pocket before they take on the responsibilities of a family who are causing problems and at whom such orders should be addressed. If it is not them, it is what we have called the rough sleepers who have alcohol or drug dependence. Those are the problem people at whom the drinking banning order is directed. It is a sad day when it comes to something like disorderly conduct that all the safeguards that we have recognised, which have developed over many years, should be thrown away and young people should be pilloried in the way that the Government suggest. If a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 commits an offence—if he is guilty of criminal damage; if he is drinking under age; if he is drunk and disorderly; if he is urinating in a public place; if he is swearing at people—he can be taken to a youth court and dealt with in that protective way that we have developed. But under this provision the principle is weakened and his protection is weakened. It is a sad day. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. Many good points were made against the proposition that I am advancing, which I shall consider with care. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 16 not moved.]