HC Deb 28 June 1948 vol 452 cc1881-5
Sir Thomas Moore

I beg to move, in page 30, line 8, to leave out "officer," and to insert "friend."

It will be obvious that the seven following Amendments in similar terms, which also stand in my name, spring from the same origin, and with permission I will deal with them together. It will probably be argued that I am breaking with tradition or precedent in proposing this Amendment, although I cannot imagine such an argument being used by His Majesty's present Government or by the right hon. Gentleman who is such a distinguished member of it. What is this tradition, what are these precedents, with the breaking of which I might be charged? They are not very elderly; so far as local authorities are concerned they are a few years old. We have the school attendance officer, the public assistance officer and the like. This word "officer" does not connote, to children at any rate, any particularly pleasant relationship. For instance, the police officer, despite many admirable and likeable qualities, frequently has to warn children against doing something which they want to do. The Army officer implies discipline. Even the school attendance officer can, I imagine, scarcely have any particularly happy associations in a child's mind.

I cannot feel that the children's officer termed as such can be any more successful. I would here say that I am merely expressing my own feelings in the matter; this is not a party view, so far as I know. This official, as I shall call him for the time being, is the most important person in the Bill except for the children and possibly the Home Secretary. He must have tolerance, tact and understanding coupled with firmness of character. Can the word "friend" not represent all those qualities as well as "officer"? A child, especially a deprived child, must have confidence in this official, must respect him and should, I suggest, like him. In my view the mere word "officer" creates a sort of psychological antagonism in a child's mind towards anyone bearing that name. As we are all united in wanting to make this Bill a success and want to give it a good send-off, surely we are all determined to omit no step that may facilitate its success? It is an experiment in a way, but it is an experiment that must succeed.

Again let me ask the House to rid itself of any ideas binding us to precedent. Whether this official is called an officer or whether he is called a friend, his position will be the same—his salary, duties and his qualifications will be the same. Why put into the mind of the child the feeling that this official is someone who is authoritarian, detached, possibly austere, instead of being what I am submitting throughout this series of Amendments, a friend? Most children are very impressionable; deprived children are very sensitive; all children are subjective. When in the 19th century male parents were a beard to give them authority they were automatically called father, but the present day male parent has discarded the beard complex and has adopted, shall we say, the "face nudiste." By doing so he implies he is relying on friendship rather than authority. The same applies to the words "officer" and "friend." One implies distance, the other implies nearness. I would ask the Home Secretary which, in his opinion, is the more valuable for the purpose which this Bill has in view? If he answers that question truthfully, he will accept my Amendment.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is an ingenious suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). It is not a frivolous suggestion, it is one of real value. The name of "children's officer" will surely be abbreviated by local authorities, and on reams of official correspondence will appear as the letters "C.O." That will not make for closer and more intimate relationship. The children will call him the "C.O.", the chairman of the education authority will call him "the C.O." possibly the adjectival "C.O." That would be avoided by introducing this humane, unique and original designation which is proposed in this Amendment. I should have preferred to call this official the children's warden. But I am happy to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend which has a certain point.

The word "officer" is repellent. It has a disciplinary association and is closely attached to that figure, so much feared by schoolchildren, the school attendance officer. It connotes the police officer. I feel that the word "friend" is more in keeping with the generous and kindly character of this piece of legislation. In a court martial we do not speak of the "prisoner's officer." We speak of the "prisoner's friend." That introduces, by that very word, a different relation from that which could be conveyed by the use of the more familiar disciplinary word which might alternatively, and with equal force, be applied. This is a very small matter, but the Home Secretary has made it clear that he brings to the Bill a cordial feeling of human sympathy and understanding, and if this alteration will emphasise that feeling and make the Bill seem less official in its approach to little children, then I hope that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and what I have ventured to say in support will commend itself to the House.

Mr. S. Marshall

I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. and gallant Friend, although I have great sympathy with the heart and feeling behind the Amendment. It may be under a mistaken idea that he makes the suggestion. Actually the words, "children's officer" will but seldom appear anywhere in connection with the child itself. It is much more likely to be a question of "Miss Smith," and so on. I do not doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) had in mind a line from a very well-known children's hymn—

Sir W. Darling

"There's a Friend—"

Mr. Marshall

—and he wishes to bring Him a little nearer during the lifetime of the child. But I do not think it would be of any value to the child if this phraseology were adopted. In my opinion the Curtis Report already errs too much on the soft side. That is one of my objections to it. I do not think that the Amendment will mean anything at all to a child, because the children will not be in contact, we hope, in this fashion with the children's officer. Therefore I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. Younger

We all know and appreciate the qualities of heart which have led the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move this Amendment, but I find myself in agreement with the conclusion, and with most of the argument, of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall). I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) will accuse me of being too closely tied to precedent. Ancient precedent in this matter does not weigh with me. What does weigh with me, to some extent, is that this term has been accepted, so far as I know, without any criticism, until today. In the last few months, since the Curtis Report, in the House and in all the discussions up and down the country everybody has accepted it—

Sir T. Moore

I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I raised this matter on Second Reading, and again in Committee, when I warned the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to move the Amendment.

Mr. Younger

I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member. He raised it, but no one else has done so as far as I am aware. We all wish to see the operation of this Bill inspired by humanity, but that is a different thing from sentiment. There is a sentimental flavour, both in the Amendment and in the arguments with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported it. I doubt whether the title would appeal, for instance, to the best type of modern social worker, who is certainly humane and inspired by principles of humanity, but who would not at all like to be called a sentimentalist.

It would appeal even less to the children. In my small experience I would say that children are the least sentimental of all sections of the community. I know that my own small daughter would be more likely to call this "sloppy" than to apply any other term to it. I do not think that the children will be affected by the word "officer" or appreciate the word "friend." I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that children are likely to know these persons, not by their title at all, but as "Mr. X" or "Miss Y." I am afraid therefore, that I cannot accept this series of Amendments.

Amendment negatived.