Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I have to commend the sagacity and the good common sense of the magistrates’ court in Brighton for equating the stabbing of an inflatable with the stabbing, such as in the case I referred to, of an individual to death and protecting the identity of the person concerned. It is ludicrous, is it not, that protection is given to children under the age of 18 on these most serious crimes and yet it is removed from them on anti-social behaviour orders? Noble Lords will remember that 57 per cent of such orders are breached. The effect of naming and shaming—as my noble kinswoman said, the placing of their photographs on a notice board and giving them publicity—is to make them the leader of the gang. I know of instances where that has happened. It puts them out of the ordinary and makes them the role model for the people in their area. If they happen to be among the 57 per cent of youngsters under the age of 18 who breach their orders they are there, ready to lead their contemporaries in the sort of behaviour that the Government seek to stop. It is short-sighted, unfair, stigmatises or gives a badge of honour to the person who is subject to that order, and does no real positive good for society as a whole. I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment, but I will consider what he has said. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 176 and 177 agreed to. Schedule 32 [Police misconduct and performance procedures]: