CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

HC Deb 26 January 1951 vol 483 cc535-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Delargy.]

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)

It is over a year since this House in the last Parliament debated the subject of cruelty to children. In the interval that has elapsed there has been a considerable amount of publicity once again devoted to various aspects of the matter. Today,

notice, and I have a very strong and growing feeling that at some time in, perhaps the not-distant future—

Mrs. Hill rose in her place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 44: Noes, 51.

Division No. 15.]	AYES	[4.0 p.m.
Albu, A. H.	Janner, B.	Scott, Donald
Ayles, W. H.	Jenkins, R. H.	Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Banks, Col. C.	Kaberry, D.	Smith, H. N. (Nottingham S.)
Brooke, H. (Hampstead)	King, H. M.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.	Kinley, J.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Channon, H.	Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Colegate, A.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Sutcliffe, H.
Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)	MacColl, J. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Viant, S. P.
Davidson, Viscountess	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)
Gammans, L. D.	Maudling, R.	White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Houghton, Douglas	Mitchison, G. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Russell, R. S.	Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Corbet
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

NOES
Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.	Fraser, T. (Hamilton)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Bell, R. M.	Freeman, J. (Watford)	Mulley, F. W.
Beswick, F.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	O'Brien, T.
Bing, G. H. C.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)	Peart, T. F.
Bowden, H. W.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)	Proctor, W.
Callaghan, James	Gunter, R. J.	Robens, A.
Cocks, F. S.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hargreaves, A.	Sparks, J. A.
Darling, G. (Hillsboro')	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Holman, P.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Weitzman, D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Willey. F. T. (Sunderland)
Deer, G.	Jay, D. P. T.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Delargy, H. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lee, F. (Newton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lindgren, G. S.	Mr. John Hay and
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	McAllister, G.	Mr. Turner-Samuels

in the short time that is available to me, I want to pin-point two particular aspects of the matter which were not dealt with to any extent on the last occasion, but upon which public opinion has shown itself anxious and worried since then.

The subject to which I wish to refer is the delay in bringing cases of cruelty to court. Before I come to that, I should like to say a word on the rather more thorny subject of the inadequate penalties which are imposed and, allied to that, the question of the maximum penalties. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for being here today, but I would really have preferred to see the Home Secretary, because it is his opinion on the subject of penalties that I wish to dispute. He has stated that he considers the present maximum penalties are enough, although I think he is some way behind public opinion in the matter.

The type of cases to which I am referring are not what I believe doctors call in their jargon "psychopathics," but those people who commit acts of cool, calculated cruelty to children which are not the result of a sudden brain storm. This type of case is unfortunately still very common, and only a heavy penalty will be a deterrent. The Home Secretary was asked, partly as a result of a newspaper campaign, that he should send a general directive to magistrates drawing their attention to this matter and submitting suggestions. He has declined to do so, and I should be the first to agree with him if he refuses to dictate to the magistrates—we have not yet come to that.

I feel however that the magistrates' attention should be drawn to the very great public feeling on this matter, and also to the anomalies in the penalties that are imposed for offences of cruelty on the one hand and, on the other, offences which are not nearly so grave and serious. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the position and consider writing to magistrates on the lines suggested. If he is not willing to do that himself, I suggest that he might consult with the Lord Chancellor and perhaps the latter might take the necessary action. The Home Office ought to be aware of the very strong feeling there is throughout the country on this matter.

The other point to which I wish to draw attention is the delay in bringing cases to court. This has also been the subject of attention in the newspapers. In a recent case in an East London police court, the magistrate very strongly censured the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because while the child concerned was under observation over a period of a year, no action was taken to bring the case to court. I was particularly interested in this case, because my attention had been drawn by a constituent to two similar cases I think it very unfortunate, whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular case may be, that the N.S.P.C.C. should have been thus pilloried and should have received so much undue and rather hostile publicity.

Any one who is interested in this subject would want to pay tribute to the Society for the wonderful work done in the last 60 or 70 years. The very fact that public opinion is shocked by these things nowadays is largely due, not only to the work they have done for the children, but the education that they have done to the grown-ups as well. They it is who have aroused public opinion and drawn our attention to the scandals which exist, and they it is who over these years have done so much hard work to make happier the homes in which these children live, and assist them where these cases of cruelty existed.

I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as any kind of attack upon that Society. Indeed, it is the very reverse. In this matter, however, one can have, some misgivings as to whether their policy is really the right one. Their policy, in the words of the Society itself, is that no parent is hopeless and that they must try to keep the home, parents and children together as long as possible rather than let the child go to a home or institution.

If that policy fails, then a grave responsibility rests on those who fail to bring the prosecution, because the child has suffered cruelty over a period of months as a result of that delay and almost irreparable damage may have been done to that child. Of course, these particular cases are but a minute percentage of the thousands of cases with which the Society deals. However, there is that great danger, and I think we may question whether that policy is always right. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us whether he is satisfied that this is the right course, and whether the Home Office view is that the type of rehabilitation work being undertaken is adequate.

I should further like to know whether in the cases to which I have drawn attention, the number of visits which are made to the homes is adequate and whether, in fact, the ambition of the Society to keep cases away from the court is really the right one. One point very relevant to this issue was put to me recently by a magistrate in a juvenile court who pointed out that if a case involved cruelty to a child and was brought to court it did not necessarily mean that the home was going to be broken up. Indeed, far from that. Very often the child was put under the care of a probation officer, and the very fact of that being done was a deterrent to further acts of cruelty by the parents.

One of the reasons which is causing these long delays and making it difficult for adequate supervision to be given to the children in their own homes and to the families where this type of cruelty is likely to arise, is that there is still a lack of co-operation between all the various social workers who are involved. Last July the Home Secretary in his circular 225, issued in conjunction with other Ministries, drew the attention of county councils and county borough councils to the need for co-operation in this matter. I am not sure what was envisaged, but I should like to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that that scheme is working, and whether when there is a suspected case of cruelty to a child, all those involved are brought quickly into consultation. It may mean the police constable, probably the school attendance officer, the school teacher, and a number of social workers. I should like to know what the Minister's views are on that point.

I want to ask a question on one detail. Has the Minister's attention ever been drawn to the type of rehabilitation work done by a body called the Family Service Units? They have a remarkable record in the slums of the big cities where they carry out an amazing work of rehabilitation and of restoring families whose social standards and standards of living are of the lowest, to a decent way of life. I feel that their approach, from what I know of it, is right. Something of that type and spirit might be brought into practice when this kind of cruelty to children is involved.

I have one final point. In the course of my researches I discovered that the Home Office Children's Department has not, as far as I can ascertain in the Library, reported since 1938. This is an unduly long interval. I hope that when this Department's next report comes along it will be borne in mind that this subject is of burning interest and importance to many citizens and social workers. I hope that the next report will not be couched in the usual Blue Book style of language but will give social workers some idea of what is being done, what remains to be done, and how they can help.

I have tried this afternoon to avoid telling any harrowing stories of cruelty. I have avoided the temptation of playing to the gallery even today when the stalls are not very full. This matter arouses strong public feeling to an extent which is not always appreciated by those in authority.

4.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)

I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) for raising this matter today, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he raised it. I should begin by making clear the responsibility of the Home Secretary in this matter. It is not the duty of the Home Secretary either to institute proceedings or to give directions to the police or to anyone else to institute proceedings for offences under Part I of the Act of 1933. It is for the police, or the N.S.P.C.C. Inspector, or the local education authority, to decide, in the circumstances of each case, whether a prosecution is justified. There is a connection between prosecutions under Section 1 of the Act and the provisions of the same Act dealing with children in need of care and protection.

For example, under Section 61, a child in need of care and protection is defined as including a child in respect of whom an offence under Section 1 has been committed. The Home Secretary has responsibility in connection with the care and protection provisions. I want to make this clear before I come to the point made by the hon. Member. Thus under Section 62 (4) the Home Secretary may authorise persons to institute court or protection proceedings, and under this provision officers of the N.S.P.C.C. have been Made "authorised persons." Thus, although the Home Secretary has no responsibility for prosecuting or directing prosecutions, he has responsibility for the welfare of the child.

It is alleged—this is one of the two allegations that the hon. Member made—that the N.S.P.C.C. is slow and reluctant to institute proceedings and that while they delay the child continues to suffer. The last annual report of the society shows the number of cases in which there were prosecutions, and the N.S.P.C.C. claims that the interests of the children are best served by helping the parents to improve conditions in the home and so keeping the family together rather than by resorting to prosecution. On page 5 the report refers to the society's inspectors and says: Their first duty is to try to ensure the happy upbringing of every child that comes under their notice in its own home and by its own parents; and that is always their first aim. The principal aim of the Society agrees with paragraph 447 of the Curtis Committee Report, which speaks of the extreme seriousness of taking a child away from even an indifferent home. Paragraph 447 reads: … we wish to emphasise once more the extreme seriousness of taking a child away from even an indifferent home. Every effort should he made to keep the child in its home … provided that the home is or can be made reasonably satisfactory. The aim of the authority must he to find something better—indeed much better—if it takes the responsibility of providing a substitute home. That is the basis of the aim of the Society.

Furthermore, on the matter of delay, there are many cases in which the Society claims that the delay is due to the time taken to collect the evidence necessary to prove wilful neglect or ill-treatment. Whatever hon. Members may think of the practice of the Society, I am sure that nearly all hon. Members will agree that its aim is right. Going further than that, I am sure that hon. Members would expect the Home Secretary to ensure that no unnecessary suffering was caused by any defect in the machinery which is operated. I was very glad indeed when the hon. Member referred to the circular which the Home Secretary, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education sent to local authorities last July. That circular is the basis of a procedure which we hope will avoid the lack of co-operation between the various people interested in and concerned with children, both official bodies and voluntary organisations, the point made by the hon. Member.

The circular suggested that the local authorities should designate one officer to whom all cases of ill-treatment should be reported and that officer should be responsible for holding regular meetings of representatives of not only all the statutory services—that would be expected with a local authority—but also of the voluntary organisations, which in nearly every case means the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. As a result of that circular, about half the authorities have designated officers. That is the measure of the steps which have been taken by the local authorities. While it is early yet to say that this has been fully successful I feel that if there is any unnecessary suffering due to delay the existence of this procedure will go a long way to do away with it.

There were a number of points about the work of the Society which I think I can best answer by saying that now the Home Office has completed the reorganisation of the Children's Branch Inspectorate we shall soon be undertaking an examination of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to see if the excellent work done by their inspectors up and down the country can be improved even further by any suggestions which our inspectors can make from their experience.

An important point was made by the hon. Member when he dealt with the 'matter of penalties. It is suggested that penalties ought to be increased. The hon. Member also asked if magistrates were aware that public opinion calls for heavier sentences. The law is clear. Anyone guilty of cruelty to a child is liable, on summary conviction, to six months' imprisonment and a fine of £25 or further imprisonment in default of payment; and on conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment and a fine of £100. Of course, in accordance with the ordinary principles of our law, within these limits the appropriate penalty is a matter for the courts.

The penalties imposed by the magistrates show that so far from their being any evidence that they are inadequate, there is in fact a very substantial reserve of power in the hands of the magistrates which they do not always use. I do not think that a court now inclined to leniency would be in any way likely to impose more severe penalties if the maximum were increased. If benches generally were imposing the maximum penalty and there was a general feeling that these punishments were too light there might be a case for altering the law and increasing the penalty.

I therefore come to the matter in this way. First, I think it wrong for us to make a general criticism in this House of what magistrates have done in certain cases when we have not before us the full evidence and circumstances of the cases. Having said that, I think it is equally wrong for some benches of magistrates to ignore the fact, which has been shown in this House on many occasions recently, that the public is unhappy about the low penalties imposed in many cases.

I heard with interest the reference of the hon. Member to the Family Service Units and the good work they were doing. They have a good record. Of course, they are a small organisation, but I will gladly look at their work to see if there is any way in which we can improve this good service. As to the report of the Children's Department, the hon. Member is right in saying that there has not been a report since 1938. The report previous to that was the 1928 report.

In 1928, the practice of having an annual report was abandoned, and, thereafter, reports were only brought out when there had been some big development in the work of the Children's Department. Since then, this House has passed the extremely important Children Act, 1948, which was a milestone in our social history, and, accordingly, now that we have seen it working, the time has come for another report. It so happens that the proof of a new report came from the printers yesterday, and we hope that report will be published by the Stationery Office in March. The range of subjects covered is wide indeed, and, as the hon. Member said, it will interest many people concerned with this matter of the care of children.

Mr. James Stuart (Moray and Nairn)

May. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He was speaking a few moments ago about penalties. May I ask him whether maximum penalties have been imposed in any cases, because I should have thought there was a difficulty in defining a high enough penalty for a genuine case of cruelty to children.

Mr. de Freitas

I could not say, but the fact is that the law does lay down maximum penalties. I was referring to the argument that we might increase these penalties, and I was saying that, so far from their being any apparent need to increase them, magistrates do not use their maximum power.

Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point, which is the responsibility of the prosecution, of the necessity to ensure that suitable cases should go from courts of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions, which I gather, is one of the big difficulties.

Mr. de Freitas

I shall risk misleading the House by speaking from memory. I recall that the hon. Lady herself had a supplementary question on 19th October in very much the same terms, and I do not think I can add to the answer of my right hon. Friend at that time.

If I may just use the last minute available to me, I would conclude by saying that the report will be out in March. I hope that hon. Members and the public generally will read it, because it is most important, and I take this opportunity of recommending it to the House and the public, and of thanking the hon. Member for having raised this important subject today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to Five o'Clock.