HC Deb 28 June 1948 vol 452 cc1851-5

4.0 p.m.

Mr. K. Lindsay

I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end to insert: (4) Any parent, guardian, relative or friend who is aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to allow a child, in respect of whom a resolution is in force, to be under his control under subsection (3) of section three of this Act may complain to a juvenile court, or in Scotland the sheriff, having jurisdiction where the complainant resides, and if the court or sheriff think fit, they or he may, without determining the resolution, order that the local authority shall allow the child to be under the control of the complainant subject to such conditions as the court may require. With this Amendment I return to a point previously made when unsuccessfully moving Amendments in Committee. This Amendment is an attempt to meet a difficulty. It was put by the Under-Secretary that the rights of the unsatisfactory parent would be revived; that the resolution would remain as if the local authority had acted under Clause 3 (3), which is, of course, an extremely important point. On the other hand, if the local authority objected to the decision of the court it could divest itself of responsibility by rescinding the resolution under Clause 4 (2) It is not anticipated that the court would act in opposition to the local authority without very good reason, any more than it now revokes orders against the advice of the local authority. But the mere fact that the complainant has an opportunity of ventilating his grievance often clears the air and sometimes brings entirely new facts to light. Also, it will help to ensure that careful attention is given to requests under Clause 3 (3).

Experience shows that administrative bodies develop inevitably some professional bias; approved schools have been known to hang on to children who were not improving, and probation officers have been known to cling to cases which did not respond, because the admission of failure seems to imply some criticism of themselves. Is it certain—and we must be certain—that an uncle, or an aunt, or some friend who knows the child to be unhappy or unsettled will always get a completely free and fair hearing under Clause 3 (3)? The approach of the inexperienced is not always tactful; in a juveniles' court many parents and relatives appear aggressive and tiresome, and very often make a bad first impression; they may even have fallen foul of a particular officer in some other direction. Yet, for all this, they may be able and willing to provide normal and affectionate homes, and a careful investigation of their claims may be well worth while in the interests of the child.

As the Home Secretary knows, this Amendment has behind it the full weight of the Magistrates' Association. Therefore, I ask him to weigh his words carefully when he replies. On this point the Curtis Committee—I will not bother to quote the report again, as I did so in Committee—used very definite words, which were also quoted by the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) in Committee. Ought we to commit a child to even the best local authority—and the Home Secretary has no illusions that their efficiency varies—for perhaps 18 years, in such a way that no friend or relative can question its discretion or secure a judicial inquiry if an application under Clause 3 (3) is refused? That is asking a lot. I want to see local authorities trusted; but this is not a question of not trusting; this is a question of trying to rehabilitate the home in the interests of the child. I believe that were the Home Secretary to accede to this request—as he has generously done elsewhere—he would improve the Bill, he would do no injury to anyone, and he would give one more chance to the child.

Mr. Royle (Salford, West)

I beg to second the Amendment.

In Committee we had an opportunity of stating fully our views on this matter. When it was first discussed I certainly got from my right hon. Friend the impression that he would look at this question very diligently between then and now. The essential thing is that at present the Bill places on the parent the onus to appeal against the taking over of a child, and I think that the parent should have the added safeguard of the local authority having to take the case to a juvenile court. Then, the parent would be fully safeguarded, and I cannot see that there would be anything in the Bill to take away the powers to be vested in local authorities by my right hon. Friend. During the passage of this Bill we have heard the phrase, which has become rather hackneyed, that nothing replaces the love, beauty and joy of normal home life. I feel that we should do everything possible to try to ensure the continuance of that state of affairs. If the local authority is compelled to go to a juvenile court there is some safeguard. This Amendment does not deal with the position in quite that way, but it is a compromise which I beg the Home Secretary to accept.

Mr. Younger

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this Amendment. I can assure hon. Members that this matter has been most carefully considered between the Committee stage and now. We are here dealing exclusively with children in respect of whom the local authority has, at the relevant moment, the parental rights under a resolution. The Bill provides for the rescission of a resolution on the complaint of parent or guardian—the person in respect of whom the resolution was made—at any time; not only in the initial stages, but at any time. Moreover, under Clause 1 it is the duty of the local authority to arrange, where appropriate, for the control of any child in its care to be taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend. So far, I think, so good.

This Amendment seeks to affect the discretion of the local authority, which is acting as parent and has parental rights, to allow some other person—who is neither parent nor guardian—to take over control of the child. I appreciate fully the arguments advanced by the two hon. Members, but I think it is a matter of judgment whether it is right that this interference should be allowed with the discretion of the local authority having parental rights. No such right is given, or proposed to be given, to interfere with children who are simply under care, under Clause 1. The Amendment relates, rather oddly, only to the case of children the subject of resolutions under Clause 2. That is perhaps only a minor point, but the Amendment would seem to work out in a rather odd way.

I submit that we must trust the local authorities in this matter. The whole scheme of this Bill involves local authorities taking over the care of large numbers of children; taking over the parental rights, probably in the case of very many. In this Bill we are doing everything we can to ensure that the set-up of local authorities dealing with this is a good one, and that the local authorities act under suitable supervision. I would remind the House that under Clause 42 local authorities, in all their work under this Bill, act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State. I should have thought it was more appropriate, in those circumstances, that when a local authority has parental rights it should be treated as though it were a parent, and should not be subject to interference—even by a court.

Of course, we all recognise the authority of the court and the value of the work that it does in this sort of matter. The local authority should be free from interference even by a court at the instance of an outsider who is neither a parent nor guardian and has no rights in respect of the child. I do not think that there is any danger involved in this matter. The local authorities are subject to very considerable checks, and although it was said that this was not a question of trusting local authorities, I think that that issue is involved to some extent by this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.