Clause II of the Government's Criminal Justice Bill, published on November 9, 1990, empowers courts to pass "curfew orders" on offenders, which requires them to stay at home or at a specified place during certain hours. Clause 12 of the bill provides for courts to require a curfew order to be enforced by the electronic monitoring of offenders. In 1989, the Home Office began a 6-month trial of electronic monitoring for defendants on bail in three magistrates' courts. Private security firms were awarded contracts to supply the monitoring equipment and manage the schemes whereby selected defendants would be granted bail on condition they gave their consent to being electronically monitored. Participants wore an anklet fitted with a low- powered radio transmitter. If the participant was not at home during the periods ordered by the court, and a radio signal was not received by the central monitoring station via a unit attached to the person's telephone, the police were informed that there had been a bail violation. The number of people monitored was much smaller than planned (46 defendants by January 30, 1990). In most cases where the electronic tag had been used (24 out of 46), defendants had breached their bail conditions, committed additional offenses on bail, or absconded. In January 1990, the Home Office announced its wish to initiate another pilot project that would cover a larger area. The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public," published in February 1990, proposed to introduce legislation to enable courts to make a curfew order either as a bail condition or as a penalty for an offense. It stated that "subject to the outcome of the experimental projects and an evaluation of the costs of electronic monitoring, curfews could be enforced by electronic monitoring." 3 tables