HC Deb 28 June 1948 vol 452 cc1871-81
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Lindsay

Are you not calling my Amendment, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 39, in page 27, line 18, after "IV," insert: except in section eighty relating to the provision of approved schools."?

Mr. Speaker

No.

Mr. Lindsay

Oh, what a pity.

Mr. Ede

That was a bit more than a whisper.

Mr. S. Marshall

I beg to move in page 28, line 38, to leave out "owing to special circumstances."

This Amendment, and the Amendment to line 39, to leave out "better," and insert "no less efficiently," again return to the attack about the setting up of separate committees. The Curtis Committee reported that there should be a separate committee set up to deal with the deprived children and on page 144, paragraph 439, it says: We have had evidence that many county councils and county borough councils share our view that a single committee should be responsible and are moving in that direction. They are also to some extent tending to remove the care of these children from the sphere of public assistance. It is obvious there that the Curtis Committee had in mind a single committee as distinct from the two committees which have been handling these children up to now, that is, the Poor Law committee and the education committee. When the Curtis Committee used the words "single committee," they did not specify that it should be a special committee, but only one committee and not two and, therefore, I think what was in their mind was that it should not be split up between two authorities.

My great concern here is that there are local authorities who have been recognising for some time their definite duties in regard to the care of children. I know, and other hon. Members know, of many authorities who have for quite a long time been caring for these deprived children under the aegis of one committee and not two; that is to say, the education committees have been carrying out practically all the functions of seeing that these deprived children have proper care and attention. Indeed, to a large extent, such local authorities have already set up under the education committee able sub-committees to which are delegated all the powers which will now be directed to the local authorities under this Bill. In many cases it will be derogatory from the welfare of the children if a separate committee has to be set up. It might not occupy an important place on the council, or in the reports of the council, and it is important to see that this work should not be minimised but magnified, and a proper place given to it in the work of the authority.

In my view, a small special committee will not be regarded as important, and so it will not get all the attention it should have. I know the Home Secretary said that there are not a large number of authorities who have such committees working, but it would be wrong to penalise a good authority, who have already set up all the necessary machinery, by taking away the work they are now doing and making them set up an entirely new committee. A great deal of the work will be duplicated, and that should be avoided. If the good authorities can satisfy the Home Secretary that they can carry on the work by a sub-committee of the education committee, I hope they will be allowed to do so, because to insist on a change in such circumstances savours of dictatorship. It does not affect the position of the children's officer because this Bill provides that there shall be a separate children's officer, and that is a safeguard to the Secretary of State that the work which he desires to be done under this Bill will be done by that sub-committee of the local authority under the direction of the children's officer.

Mr. K. Lindsay

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is difficult to know what to say about this Amendment—

Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Do not say it.

Mr. Lindsay

We have had it all out several times, and I do not know whether the Home Secretary is inclined to give way this afternoon. He is in a pretty generous mood and I am sorry that the hon. Members for York (Mr. Corlett) and North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) are away because they would bring great force to bear. However, I see that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) is here, and I have no doubt that he will support us. The fact of the matter is that upstairs a similar Amendment secured 11 votes against 16, and if all hon. Members on this side of the House had been in their places, and if hon. Members on the other side had been in their places, the Amendment would have been won—but, of course, it was not quite the same Amendment.

The fact is, it is quite impossible to discuss separately this Amendment and my Amendment which was not called, because they are both part of a general outlook on this question. It is an outlook which the Home Secretary enjoyed for many years of his life. When he was on the Surrey County Council he took a different view, or would have taken a different view—

Mr. Ede

I am still on the Surrey County Council.

Mr. Lindsay

It is difficult to take a strong view as a local authority member when the right hon. Gentleman is in his present high office, but there is no reason why he should not remember the views he held then. This battle was lost the day the Curtis Committee was appointed. It was lost because, as everybody is now agreed, the bias of the Bill is due to a lack of balance on the educational side in the personnel of the Curtis Committee. There is no question about that. I have been through their names carefully in order to see what were their qualifications.

My second point is that in the Cabinet, or wherever these questions are decided, the battle was lost again. I know that the Minister of Education, who I am very glad to see sitting beside the Home Secretary, would wish it otherwise. He is a strong local education authority man. This Bill is a local authority Bill, not a local education authority Bill. These neat little words of our Amendment make all the difference to this Clause, called the escape clause, like propositions in the Greek Testament, between Heaven and Hell. They make the difference to these children coming under a new set of officers when they are already being well looked after by existing officers.

I was brought up to believe that it is a bad thing to destroy anything which is good and growing. It is not the task of a radical reformer to do that. Here we have 2,228 children in 31 schools under 24 local education authorities—that is, the approved school side. There are other bodies, like the London and Surrey County Education Committees who are doing a perfectly good job. Why upset it all? For administrative tidiness? Upstairs during Committee stage, talking of approved schools, the Home Secretary used these astonishing words: In so far as it is education in the school sense, clearly the education officer will be the person whose advice is sought if there is any difficulty; but on the other side of the work, it is very desirable that the committee which deals with the out-of-school life of other children shall also have responsibility for the out-of-school life of these children.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 10th June, 1948; c. 190.] In the following week the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Education presented a report entitled "Out of School," urging education authorities to set up out-of-school committees, with representation of voluntary bodies on them, to give grants in aid to voluntary bodies serving out-of-school interests. This report says that it is impossible to draw the line of demarcation at four o'clock, six o'clock, or at any other time and to say that at that point in the day a child's education ends. This most recent report contradicts in specific words the speech upstairs by the Home Secretary.

I will not go into the further points because we have had them before. During the Committee stage the Home Secretary was very reasonable on one point: he said this was a matter for a three years' experiment. We do not yet know how it will end. This Bill is very much of a transitional measure. It may well seem to the Home Secretary of the day in 1951 that it is wiser on balance to leave these matters, which affect the child in every aspect, with the education committee. Why not allow these local authorities, who are already doing good work, to continue? In the other cases, why not try the children's committee and see if they can do better? Would not that spirit of rivalry be a very good thing?

There are four separate Ministries now dealing with the life of a child—Education, Health, and Labour and the Home Office.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

Which is worst?

Mr. Lindsay

I wonder. I should not think the Ministry of Education is worse than the others. Why divide up the poor little innocent child into four parts? Why take 120,000 of five million children in the country and deal with one aspect of those 120,000, which is called home giving? Why create 140 new officers, who will probably require assistance before long? I repeat what I have said before: that there will be created something almost of a vested interest in the deprived child. These authorities who did their job before the war—with no legal obligation—did it because they wanted to look after the children in a wider setting; they did so voluntarily. If the Home Secretary allows them to continue to do the good work he will meet with a very practical response from educationists and local education authorities all over the country.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) quoted the opening sentences of paragraph 439 of the Curtis Report. It is a pity that his reading of the Report ended there, because the opening sentences of paragraph 440 deal with the summing up of the argument, of which the sentences he read form only a part. The opening sentence of paragraph 440 reads, After carefully considering these arguments we favour the establishment of an ad hoc committee reporting direct to the council. On page 178 the 14th recommendation States, Where the county or county borough council is the responsible authority it should work through a single ad hoc committee … That is the recommendation which we have accepted and it is on the balance of the argument summarised in paragraph 440 that we have reached that conclusion.

It has been urged against me that I may be somewhat inconsistent with some things I may have said or done in the past. I am like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill): I am not slavishly bound to anything merely because I might be inconsistent if I changed my views when I heard a better argument. I am not aware that I have, in fact, ever expressed views which indicated that the education committee was the appropriate body for this purpose. The nearest I got to it was when I attempted to amalgamate the work of the public assistance committee and the education committee, where I stood very strongly for bringing all the children, in the circumstances then existing under the education committee.

We are told by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) that these children are only 120,000 out of 5,000,000. That is precisely why it is necessary to ensure that they shall receive special and separate consideration. These deprived children, as the Curtis Report shows, have been something worse than the Cinderellas of the child population of the country. I wanted to have for the three experimental years a separate committee to deal with them, because I am certain that, if they are relegated to the position of being cared for by a sub-committee of a big committee dealing with children in the same proportions as the figures of the hon. Member, they will never get that careful attention which it was the clear desire of the Curtis Committee, and of the country following the publication of the Curtis Report, that they should receive.

It is quite wrong to think that the local authorities are by any means unanimous in supporting the view expressed in this Amendment. Some 60 local authorities, in anticipation of the passing of this Measure, have already appointed separate children's committees. Such important areas as Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester and, among the counties, Kent and Middlesex, have accepted the view of the Curtis Committee that an ad hoc committee is the appropriate body to deal with this matter. I want to place the responsibility as fairly and squarely as I can on the shoulders of the authority. In committee upstairs hon. Members used the words "local education authority" when it was quite clear that they meant the "local education committee."

If this work is delegated to a sub-committee of the education committee, the contact with the local education authority will be too remote for us to feel that the great amount of work that the Curtis Committee showed had to be done will be properly undertaken and understood by the authority itself. If we have a separate committee reporting direct to the authority it is certain that the authority will be a great deal better informed about the work that is being done than if it is a sub-committee of one of the committees of the authority. I do not want to see at the fag end of some education committee's report, "We have received the report of our children's sub-committee, and have given the necessary instructions thereon." I want there to be in the council, whether it be a county council or county borough council, a spokesman as chairman of this committee who will have to present his case for the improvements he wants, who will have to defend any shortcomings, and who will be able there and then to shoulder full responsibility.

This is something more than a piece of local administrative machinery. This is the test as to what this House feels as to the importance of these 120,000 children in the life of the nation. They are the children who have been deprived of a normal home life. They are in many ways the most defenceless of all our population. They have no one to stand up for them. It is therefore very desirable that we should make quite certain that following on the publication of the Curtis Committee Report and this early implementation of it in legislation their defenceless position is recognised and that they should be given a place in the scheme of local and national administration which indicates how strong our feeling is that they must receive prompt, energetic, and personal attention. The hon. Member for Combined English Universities went into mathematics on the problem, and said that in this I only carried the Committee upstairs with me by 16 to 11. That was on the other Amendment which was similar to the Amendment which Mr. Speaker did not call. It is true that we had a strong Debate in which Members on both sides of the Committee adopted different views. It was a complete nonparty discussion. I was careful not to introduce a party atmosphere this afternoon. We had a strong discussion and at the end the Amendments were withdrawn.

I hope this afternoon that the House will feel that while there is much to be said for these Amendments—and if all local authorities were good authorities one might be prepared to accept these words—local authorities do differ—although I know some local authority publication editors do not like me saying it—in their efficiency and the importance they attach to this type of work. I shall never forget when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education going round trying to persuade local education authorities to start school meals. I went into the offices of one very important county education committee and was told, "If there is any child in this county who wants a school meal, let his parents apply to the Public Assistance Committee." I am not prepared to leave to local authorities and local education authorities with that mentality the responsibility for dealing with deprived children.

It is because we want to make it quite clear to all concerned that these children are of the utmost importance to the nation, and that their upbringing is of the utmost importance, that I ask the House to maintain the Bill in its present form and to reject these Amendments. I am certain that if we do that we shall ensure for all these children a far better opportunity, and for some of them an exceedingly better opportunity than if we adopt the Amendments. I have nothing but praise for the work that most local education authorities do in their capacity as education authorities, but I feel that in this matter, after the revelations of the Curtis Committee's Report and their strong recommendations after their investigations, that we should be well advised to adhere to the Clause as printed in the Bill.

Commander Galbraith

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not introduce a party atmosphere, because if he had done so he would have placed me in a very difficult and unfortunate position, as it so happens that in regard to these Amendments I find myself on his side. I believe the weight of argument he has brought forward in defending the Bill as it stands is altogether overwhelming, but I feel the House ought to be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) and to the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for having brought this matter before the House for discussion. It is a matter of administration and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has great experience in these matters. It is right that he should have made his feelings known to the House. However, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the stand he has taken, because I believe that these children desire to be represented by a committee which is not representing anyone else.

Mr. C. Williams

I am not quite as pleased with the attitude of the Home Secretary as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). In his opening remarks the right hon. Gentleman repudiated a good many of the things said about him by the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and then proceeded to quote a report. I have no doubt he quoted efficiently for his own purposes. Having quoted the report, he proceeded to give himself yet another coat of whitewash in addition to the many he has already given himself. I was not quite persuaded by the balance of his arguments. Everyone will agree, that in all probability, having a direct committee of the county council is the best way of dealing with these matters. There is no difference of opinion in the House that the 120,000 children whom we are discussing should undoubtedly have the very highest and best attention, and that it should be made quite clear to all local authorities that they should have a special direction and a special committee.

5.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is of the opinion that the four Ministers in charge of this Bill are all bad; he is steadily improving his knowledge of this world, but I should not like to intervene in that particular trouble. While there may be under certain circumstances already a body which can deal with it, that body should not be outside the provisions which this Amendment would cover. It would be a pity if, in these circumstances, there is an existing body which is really good, keen, and hard-working, it should not be possible to make an exception in the way suggested.

There is an almost overwhelming argument in favour of that being possible under certain circumstances which can and will be checked by the other part of this Clause, although I am uncertain about the position in Scotland. We have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary about this matter and we all appreciate the trouble and the work which he has put into it, but I wish to know a little more from the educational point of view. We have heard a good deal from the Home Secretary's point of view but we are here dealing primarily with children. I think it a great pity that in a matter of this sort, which the Home Secretary admits has been closely discussed, with many arguments advanced on both sides, we have heard nothing whatever from the educational point of view to help us to make up our minds. Those of us who want to see the best done for the children—and I see a considerable number of people on this side of the House who are deeply interested in education and possibly one or two on the other side—want every form of information. We are evidently not to be allowed to hear the Minister of Education express his views on this matter. We ought to know that side as well as the sometimes hard Home Office point of view.

Amendment negatived.