HC Deb 16 November 1925 vol 188 cc128-32
Mr. WESTWOOD

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

After the expression of sympathy with the probation officers to which we have just listened from the Home Secretary I hope he will accept this proposal. I do not move the deletion of this Clause for the purpose of minimising or throwing any discredit upon the work of the great voluntary organisations in connection with the payment, appointment and duties of probation officers. Such organisations as the Salvation Army, the Church Army and other great organisations are entitled to the very greatest credit for the work they have been doing in trying to save young persons who have gone astray. We in this House are entitled to give those bodies all the credit we can for their splendid work, but my point is that while they may have spent, as was admitted in Committee, approximately £40,000 per year in connection with such work that gave them a right of absolute control over their own probation officers, whereas under this Bill we are now proposing that certain payments should be made from the State, through these voluntary organisations. That, I think, is wrong. The payment should be made direct to the probation officers so that we should have control in connection with these men who have been doing such splendid work, and so that we should be sure that they receive adequate remuneration for their work.

Mr. PALING

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

This is a Clause upon which I, personally, lay very great stress. I have been connected with voluntary organisations of probation officers for well over 30 years. I have had personal knowledge of them, and personal superintendence of them, and to these voluntary societies, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and others, we owe really the probation system. Without these missionaries, as they were called in my young days, we should never have had the probation system. What happens is this. Under the provisions of the Bill the magistrates can either appoint their own men, or they can appoint one or two men provided by the voluntary societies. We do not cut out the right of the magistrates to provide their own men. All that we say is, if they have a man who is an agent, say, of the Church of England Temperance Society or the Salvation Army, who they know has been doing good work for four or five years as police court missionary, "For heaven's sake, let them have the option, if they wish, to appoint him probation officer." That is all that we want.

I was speaking the other day at a meeting, and Sir Chartres Biron, the Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan area, was there. As the House knows, London has an enormous area, and there are in London, I think, 29 probation officers. Every one, I think, is provided by the voluntary society known as the London Police Court Mission, and Sir Chartres Biron, in my hearing, at the meeting at the Mansion House last week, speaking as Chief Magistrate, urged the continuation of what he called, and what I call, the voluntary system. He strongly supported it. He said it had been the means of doing an enormous amount of good in the police courts of the land; and it is not a small thing—I speak on behalf of the Government and the Treasury—when these voluntary organisations provide from £30,000 to £40,000 a year towards the work of this society.

May I put one other point? It is not a bad thing for the missionary, the probation officer, to have some committee outside the Magistrates—who, after all are on the Bench—some committee and a secretary, who have got, perhaps, a boy or a girl at home, connected with their organisation, to whom he can go and talk over the difficulties in different cases. As the House knows, the work of the probation officer is not merely the work done in the police court. He is looking after the boys and girls that come under his care. I think last year in London alone—I speak from memory— there were over 2,000 cases where people had applied for separation orders, which were stopped through the agency of the probation officers. The Magistrates simply handed them over to the probation officer and said: "See these people, and see if you cannot bring them together again." That is the kind of work that has been done for many years, and I speak as one who has been connected for many years with one of these organisations, in personal, weekly touch with these missionaries. They came to me to discuss their cases with me, and I was able perhaps to suggest something to one or another, speaking from my experience, which they would not have been able to do themselves. I say that that system, which has worked so admirably, and which is the foundation of all the probation work in the country, should not be broken up. We do not impose it on the magistrates. If the magistrates in any district say, "We do not like your voluntary societies, and we will not have the Church Army or the Salvation Army," under the Bill as it now stands they can appoint their own probation officer without any reference to any society at all. All that we ask is that, if they wish to do it, they may appoint a man who is an agent of a voluntary society, and I suggest that he brings together the official and the voluntary work in such a way that it is really admirably adapted, to use an expression which is not too strong, I am sure, for saving a great deal of the wreckage of humanity that is thrown on the police courts, and which, but for the probation officer, might go to prison.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

While I am not disposed to offer any great opposition to this Clause, I should like to ask the Home Secretary how the deletion of the Clause would in any way affect any one of the voluntary societies that already exist. The obvious result of the deletion of the Clause would be to leave the matter exactly as it is, except for this single difference. If the Justices desired, they could appoint one who at the moment happens to be a probation officer employed by a voluntary society, but instead of sending the salary to the voluntary society, as determined by this Clause, they would pay the salary of the probation officer direct to the individual who earned the money. That having been done, is there any reason to believe that the voluntary societies would go out of busi- ness at all, merely because some outside official body had decided to accept the financial obligation of the probation officer instead of the society having to find his salary? Could not the probation officer receive his salary from official sources and continue to co-operate with the voluntary society just as he did in the past? Could he not, and would he not, benefit by past experience with the voluntary societies in the work that he had to do in the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the principle, with an official body—the Government or the county councils in this case—of paying the salary of one of their officers to some third party, is one that he could support in all cases, or that he can support with any degree of enthusiasm even in this case?

With the Mover of the Amendment, I should have to speak in the highest terms of the work of many of these voluntary societies. I think I was pleading with the right hon. Gentleman just prior to the Adjournment in August for an enlarged number of probation officers. I know some of the very valuable work that they have done, but I see no reason, in case this Clause is deleted, why that work should not go on and should not be more effective in future, with the increased number of probation officers, than it has been in the past, when the full financial burden rested upon these voluntary societies. I would suggest that the Clause could be deleted and that probation officers could be appointed exactly in the same way without the Clause as with the Clause. The only difference would be that the officer would receive his salary direct from official sources, instead of from a voluntary society, and he could continue to co-operate with the voluntary society, thereby securing all the assistance that they would be willing to give, and continuing to improve upon the work of the past because the financial burden would be taken from the society and accepted by an official body. The principle of paying Government and county council wages to some other body or society than the person who is actually earning that salary is not one that this House could afford to support in very many cases. I do not think it would be a reflection at all upon the voluntary societies if this Clause were deleted and salaries paid direct, but we plead with those societies to be as useful in future, in reference to these probation officers, as we all know they have been in the past.

Amendment negatived.