RESTRICTION OF IMPRISONMENT OF CHILDREN (Hansard, 6 April 1960)

§ Mr. Alan Brown (Tottenham)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the committal to prison of children under sixteen years of age, to provide for the transfer to remand homes or remand centres of certain children who have been so committed, to prescribe the period for which such restrictions and provisions shall remain in force, and for connected purposes. I most sincerely crave the indulgence of the House for the next ten minutes and if I have recourse to my notes rather more than is to the normal liking of hon. Members, I hope that I shall be forgiven, because I have a great deal to say and very little time in which to say it. I also, with respect, ask hon. Members, as far as possible, to forget their political affiliations and consider only that other side of life which is possibly more important—the family side and the rôle of parenthood, because I wish to speak about the nation's children, many of whom even now as we deliberate are locked in prison cells throughout the land.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me that society received a severe shock, three weeks ago, when it came to light that a schoolgirl of 14 was imprisoned in Holloway Gaol. I trust that hon. Members will forgive me if I further impress upon them the gravity of the matter now before us, and the serious concern expressed by the public following that disclosure, by quoting an editorial from one of Britain's national newspapers. The editorial said: The story of a 14-year old girl sent to Holloway on remand and placed in a ward with women accused of murder is horrifying. Is this the 17th or 20th century? A pathetic point about the case is that the girl was originally in trouble for playing truant from school. It's a ghastly thought that the means society has devised for her protection might be a stepping stone to a rake's progress. Magistrates have the power to remand juveniles in prison. But, if this system means that children may be bundled together with possibly hardened criminals it should be smashed. I think that I would be correct in saying that this editorial fairly reflected the reaction of the entire national Press and of the British public, and I hope the hon. Members will also be of that opinion. Suffice, therefore, that I say 401 that the Governor of Holloway Gaol, whom I subsequently visited and by whom I was received with great courtesy, told me that she was completely opposed to the sending of school children to these prisons. And of those persons who played a part in the enacting of this tragic affair, from its very start to its finish, who should be in a better position to judge than this good woman?

I now turn briefly to the treatment accorded to schoolboys. On 22nd March, when I visited Wormwood Scrubbs, I discovered nine boys below school-leaving age imprisoned there. There are two prison blocks within the outer wall of this notorious prison. One block is the "boys'" prison and the other is the "men's" prison. The term "boys" is used in this instance in a rather loose way, because, in fact, this boys' prison contains persons in the entire age range of over 14 to under 21. I particularly mention this because of public anxiety that the inmates of the boys' prison might be associating with the inmates of the men's prison. In fact, they are kept quite separate.

There is a real danger, however, of the possible criminal indoctrination of the schoolboys by the older youths of the "young adult" class. The knowledge that criminal statistics reveal an alarming increase in crime, both against property and the person, to an extent that is coming near to placing this "over 17, but under 21 group" into a class by themselves, is perturbing. The knowledge, also, that recent American criminal statistics reveal that young adults of 19 constitute the peak age of criminality is also worthy of note.

The Governor of Wormwood Scrubbs said to me, "We have youths in the 17 to 21 age group guilty of very serious crimes; in fact, the whole gamut, including rape, robbery with violence and attempted murder." The Governor, the two Assistant Governors, the Chief Prison Officer, together with the welfare officer and senior prison officials, to all of whom I spoke, were unanimous in their condemnation of the present practice of sending schoolboys to such prisons. "Pitiful" was the expression used by the Chief Prison Officer.

The children are locked individually in the ordinary type of bare comfortless prison cell measuring about 7 ft. by 402 10 ft. It is, indeed, a pitiful sight. There are no educational facilities. Surely hon. Members condemn such mediaeval treatment of our children today.

I now briefly turn to the arguments put forward against the proposals in the Bill. From the social and humanitarian viewpoint, I cannot conceive that these can be valid. The concept that a child may not be imprisoned for any reason whatsoever before he or she reaches the normal end of compulsory school attendance is already the accepted practice in most countries.

The argument which has received most publicity is that if we release school children from prison there is nowhere else for us to send them. To some extent, this may be true at the moment, but let us not, in the light of what I am about to say, accept it as being wholly true—sfor if we do then we stand convicted on our own evidence.

If shortage of remand homes is to be pleaded, why, in heaven's name, have so many of these homes been closed down in recent years? The seventh Report of the Children's Department of the Home Office states: Between 1st January, 1951, and the 1st January, 1955, eighteen Remand Homes owned by local authorities were closed down with a consequential loss of 495 places. The result of such closures meant that in January. 1955, the country was left with 36 Remand Homes for boys, 14 Remand Homes for girls, plus one mixed sexes Remand Home—all provided by local authorities. In addition, we were able at that time to use 10 remand homes owned by voluntary organisations. It is only fair to say that between 1st January, 1951, and 1st January, 1955, there was a decrease in the incidence of juvenile delinquency, but it is difficult to see how such a decrease justified the reduction in the available remand homes during that period from 79 to 61, representing a closure of about 25 per cent.

We may ask whether there was singular lack of foresight by those concerned, because between 1955 and now the incidence of juvenile delinquency has heavily increased. Yet, in spite of this increase, there has been a further closure of remand homes. While in 1955, we could call upon 10 remand homes owned by voluntary organisations, there are only four of them today. Six have been closed 403 since 1955. In addition, nine more remand homes owned by local authorities have been closed since 1955.

On the credit side, six new remand homes have been opened and one is building at Hassocks. This will reduce the net loss of local authority remand homes to two since 1955. We must face the situation that since 1955 there has been a net loss altogether of eight remand homes.

In view of these figures, hon. Members may consider that there is some justification for the saying that the children's service has become the Cinderella of our social services. The figures for 1958— the latest available—from the Home Office indicates that the rather alarming figure of 484 boys and 12 girls, being children of school age, had the stigma of prison attached to their young lives. The school children do not remain in prison for the whole year; so far as I can deduce 120 to 150 are at the moment lying in prison.

Need these little school children wait in their prison cells? Would not hon. Members agree that if we have discharged our duties as parents they need not be there at all? Will they not also agree that children are very defenceless and very helpless? Who but to us can they turn for help?

I have exceeded my time, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise.