CLAUSE 1.—(Juvenile courts.) (Hansard, 30 June 1932)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment, which is almost to be described as a drafting Amendment, i.3 to ensure beyond any doubt that, where a joint charge is made against a child or young person, who would normally come before the juvenile court, and an adult, that joint charge shall not be heard in the juvenile court, but in the adult court. The principle was agreed to without any discussion in the House, but it was felt that these words had better be inserted, in order to make certain that that principle over-rides any contrary instruction that there may be in this part of the Bill.

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "or at different times."
Perhaps it may be convenient to the House if I discuss at the same time another Amendment which I shall have to move to the Lords Amendment. The House no doubt will remember that one of the new provisions made in the Bill was with regard to the sittings of juvenile courts. As the Bill was originally introduced, it proposed that it should no longer be possible to hold a juvenile court in either a building mainly or exclusively used as a police station or for the hold- 2063 ing of courts not being juvenile courts, or a room ordinarily used for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts; but the Bill as it was introduced allowed for the making of an application to the Secretary of State in any case where it was felt that this new provision would be an undue burden on the local authority in the present difficult times, and the Secretary of State was given power to approve the use of an ordinary court or room in a building usually used for the purpose of an adult court.
I think there was general agreement in the House with the principle of that new provision. It was felt that it was a bad thing to associate too closely the adult and the juvenile courts, not only from the point of view of bringing the juveniles awaiting trial in contact with adults also awaiting trial, but, what was felt to be even more important, from the point of view of the parents, whose sympathies it is desirable to enlist in any treatment that is going to be provided for their children, and who would be more likely to respond if they were not haled before the ordinary police court, with all its associations, but were taken to a different room and a different atmosphere. At the same time, we recognise that, in view of the fact that in many districts, particularly country districts, the present practice is for the juvenile court to sit either in the ordinary adult court or in the magistrates' room in the adult court-house, a number of applications would have had to be made, and in a number of cases we should have had to grant permission for the continuance of the old practice. This Amendment restores the provision that juvenile courts may sit either in a different building or a different room from that in which courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from the sittings of such other courts. The effect will be that they can sit in a different room at any time on any day, or, if the same room be used, at a different time or on a different day from when that room is used for the holding of an ordinary adult court.
In some ways it is retrogressive to ask the House, as I shall do, to agree to this Amendment, but, from information which has reached us since the Bill was first discussed, we have realised that at the present moment it would not be possible, 2064 in the case of a large number of courts, to comply strictly with the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced, that applications would have to be made for permission to contravene this provision, and that we should have to grant such permission. It is a bad thing, however, to pass something in an Act of Parliament and then to grant so many exemptions that it becomes practically a dead letter.
But there is one point in the Lords Amendment to which it is impossible to ask the House to agree. It is impossible to ask the House to agree that the juvenile court may sit in the same room as an ordinary adult court, provided only that it is at a different time, because that would allow of a continuance of the present practice which I think is very deleterious, under which a court sits 'as an adult court, and then, by simply putting up a notice outside the door, turns itself immediately into a juvenile court in the same room. The Amendment which I now move to the Lords Amendment would mean that the ordinary adult courtroom could only be used for a juvenile court if it were so used on a different day. Hon. Members will realise that this provision entails no expense. It does not mean that a different room will have to be found, or hired, or built. If it means anything, it can only mean some inconvenience to magistrates in not being able to dispose of both the adult and the juvenile business on the same day. I think the House will agree, however, that such slight inconvenience as it may cause will be well repaid by the resulting partial separation, at any rate, of juvenile and adult courts.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
So far as I understand this very complicated method of dealing with Amendments from the other House, the hon. Gentleman appears to me to be agreeing with one part of the Lords Amendment and disagreeing with another. I do not think that there is sufficient difference on the first issue to warrant delaying the Bill, and, with regard to holding juvenile courts on different days from adult courts, I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am satisfied, from the evidence on this matter to which I listened for a long time, that he is perfectly right in his statement, and, rather than delay the Bill, I should be 2065 willing to accept, reluctantly in respect of the first point, the suggestion, that is now made.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I do not like this Amendment. We discussed it at great length upstairs and practically the whole Committee thought we should have kept the young children apart altogether from criminals and from the criminal court. The Government brought this Bill in because they considered that the methods of the past were not in keeping with our humane ideas to-day. Time and again it was brought out that Members had attended these courts and found young children who were practically innocent being brought into contact with court officials, police, etc., and we thought this was an opportunity to ensure that young children should no longer be treated in the barbarous fashion in which they are treated to-day in being brought before criminal courts, with all that that means. I think, as a Member of the House for over 10 years, that if the Lords are going to amend our Bills they ought to come here and hear what we have to say about it. They have no right to sit high and dry in another place and deal with subjects that they know absolutely nothing about.
We are dealing here with the poorest section of the working class, and young children at that. Members on all sides of the House have taken a keen interest in the Bill, and, after we have argued with one another and come to some sort of agreement on a Bill that the Undersecretary has piloted through with great credit to himself, Members of another place who know nothing about it say, "We will not allow this to go in. We are the Lords." I hope, if it is within your power, Sir, that you will let the Lords know that, if they are going to amend our Bills, it is their duty to send representatives to this House to hear what we have to say. The time when the Lords can do what they like is far past. They are not going to mutilate our Bills in this fashion. The Undersecretary says we are not able to have special court houses for children, as originally intended, owing to our straitened circumstances. Are any of the Lords hard up? Are any of them going without their breakfast? Are any of them on the means test? Not one. Yet an atmosphere has been created that the country is poverty-stricken, and every 2066 thing that we do has to be tainted with that disease—even doing justice to little children.
I do not believe that is a justification for their turning down this part of the Bill. The Under-Secretary says they discovered, in getting into contact with certain districts, that the conditions were of such a character that they would not have been able to comply with the law. That is all right, but I have known laws passed when it was known quite well that the workers could not comply with them. The House will support the Under-Secretary, and the most that I can do is to ask him to let it be known throughout the length and the breadth of the land what was the idea that pervaded the Committee, that children should not be brought into contact with criminal courts.

§ Mr. BATEY
I want to join with ray hon. Friend in regretting that the Under-Secretary is accepting any part of this Amendment. It is a wise step to delete these words, thus making it possible to use a court for adult cases and then to go on to consider juvenile cases, but still at this stage he should not have been prepared to accept any part of the Lords Amendment. It might be costly to ask for a different building in which to try juveniles, but I see nothing to prevent them being tried in a different room in the same building. One has acted as a magistrate in a good many of these cases and, if it is not possible to try juveniles in the magistrates' room, there is always some other room, even if it is the magistrates' clerk's room. I am strongly opposed to juveniles being tried in an adult court, even on a different day, and I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has given way.