HC Deb 12 April 1961 vol 638 cc342-53
Mr. Renton

I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, to leave out from "If" to "that" in line 41, and to insert: on information on oath laid by or on behalf of the managers of an approved school it appears to a justice of the peace on whom jurisdiction is hereinafter conferred". It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendment we also considered the following Amendments:

In page 10, line 6, at end insert: (2) A justice shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if he is a justice for the county or borough in which the approved school first mentioned in that subsection is situated, and is not one of the managers of that school. In line 10 leave out "a" and insert "any".

The three Amendments stand together.

These Amendments are designed to meet some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in the debate on Clause 15 in Standing Committee and also some of the suggestions which were made in the new Clause put forward by him and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).

As the Bill is reported to the House, Clause 15 (1) enables an information to be laid before any justice of the peace with a view to the temporary removal of somebody from an approved school, and it can be laid "by the managers or one of the managers" of the school "or by any person authorised in that behalf by them or him". The right hon. Gentleman, I think not unnaturally, expressed the fear that one manager might set the machinery of the Clause in motion in defiance of the views of his colleagues. That could happen, although one would expect it to be a very rare case, but although it is a rare case, we agree that it is something that should be avoided and should never be allowed to happen. The first Amendment would, therefore, provide for the information to be laid "by or on behalf of the managers". That would enable the managers as a whole to confer authority to lay an information on such persons and subject to such restrictions as they thought best.

The new Clause which was on the Notice Paper during the Standing Committee, and which interested us very much, would have required the information to be laid before a justice of the peace for the petty sessional division in which the school was situated and who was not a manager of the school. The right hon. Gentleman, again very naturally, did not want a conflict of duties to arise between a person's duty as a justice of the peace and his duty as a manager of the school if he served in both capacities. We agree that that is a situation to be avoided.

A limitation related to the petty sessions area in which the school is situated seems to us to be unduly restrictive. Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which enables a summons or warrant for an offence to be issued by a justice of the peace for the county or borough in which the offence was committed, seems to us to be a better precedent to follow. The second Amendment therefore confines the jurisdiction to issue a warrant, under subsection (1) of Clause 15 for the removal of a person from an approved school, to a justice of the peace in the county or borough in which the school is situated, such justice of the peace not being himself a manager of the school. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North will feel that his principal points of criticism of the Clause have been met.

The third Amendment is a minor one which is consequential on the other two. I will explain the matter further if any hon. Members should so require, because this is a new procedure and it is important that we should get it right and understand it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State might have apologised for the form in which this Clause was originally put before us, because it was a fantastic Clause and the criticisms I made of it in Committee were very mild compared with my feelings. I could not imagine that anyone who had attended three sittings at a magistrates' court, either as a magistrate or as counsel appearing before the court, could ever have contemplated the machinery that was set out, because it was open to abuses of every kind. I want to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, because, although he has shown no signs of repentance, he has at any rate, brought … forth fruits meet for repentance and I accept that as some acknowledgement of the apology that he should have tendered to the House.

The Amendments do everything that I wanted to do and in fewer words than I employed. My experience of Acts of Parliament about these matters is that the fewer words there are the easier it is to ensure compliance with the requirements of the law in the procedures both at managers' meetings and in magistrates' courts. These three Amendments provide a workable scheme which, if carried out, by the chairman and clerk of the managers of an approved school and the chairman and clerk of any magistrates' court that may be involved, ought to avoid any abuse occurring of the kind, which, quite frankly, I very much feared.

In considering the question of a petty sessional division for the county or borough in which the school is situated, we must remember that we are leaving the matter wide in a large rural county. For instance, take the West Riding of Yorkshire. One may be on the hills out by Sedbergh and Ripon, and then go to one of the towns or villages near Selby and still be within the West Riding. I thought that my suggestion for a petty sessional division was worth bearing in mind, although I am aware that in certain Acts of Parliament the term "county' is used for a matter of this kind.

This is quite a minor matter, because I do not think that anybody, if they are somewhere in the south of the West Riding, will wander up to have a look at Penygent and Ingleborough and the rest of the mountains in order to get a summons under this Clause, but I would still have preferred a petty sessional division. I believe, however, that the Clause as now drafted is workable, and if the people who have to work it will pay attention to its wording the abuses that I feared and detailed in Committee ought to be avoided.

Mr. Weitzman

This is a very important matter. It has now been put right, and we ought to put on record our appreciation of the vigilance of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to whom the credit for putting this matter right is due.

Miss Bacon

The Clause is very much better than it was. That is not saying a great deal, because it could not have been much worse than it was.

In a speech which showed an amazing knowledge of Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that we now had a scheme which was workable and that the procedure could work. I grant that that is true, but I want to make my position and that of many of my hon. Friends quite clear. Although we believe that this is a workable scheme, we still do not like the principle embodied in the Clause—removing boys from approved school—although we admit that the procedure is much better than it was.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. V. Yates

I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out "or remand home".

This Clause is a drastic provision. It says that if it is necessary for maintaining the discipline or proper functioning of the school that any person not less than fifteen years of age who is detained in school should forthwith be removed there-from pending inquiry as to the best means of dealing with him, the justice may issue a warrant directing him to be removed by a constable from the school to another approved school or to a remand centre or remand home, and there detained for a period of twenty-eight days unless sooner dealt with according to the law. This drastic provision is opposed by many penal reformers.

I do not like the Clause, as I said in Committee, and I have moved the Amendment to remove one objectionable feature—the power which the Clause provides to remove a difficult or tough boy from an approved school and to send him not merely to a remand centre, but possibly to a remand home. Remand homes were never intended to house young persons of 15 found to be too difficult for an approved school. The principal purpose of a remand home is to study persons from the age of eight onwards and to issue a report about them.

I visited a remand home in Birmingham and found that the superintendent was as horrified as his fellow superintendents at the suggestion contained in the Clause. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, like all other hon. Members, will have received a letter setting out the objection which the National Association of Remand Home Superintendents and Matrons has to the Clause. The remand home in Birmingham is run extraordinarily well and it is doing a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances. Its superintendent is the Honorary Secretary of the National Association of Remand Home Superintendents and Matrons. For a long time it has been impossible for this remand home to cater for the many demands made on it.

The Association's letter says: The provision seems to us to have been inserted without any thought having been given to the real nature and function of a remand home and to the physical limitations of such an establishment to cope with the particular young man the authorities have in mind, and certain it is that the very valuable observation and assessment work performed and being developed today in our remand homes would be rendered immediately impossible were we to have imposed upon us this additional and exceptionally arduous new-task. It is a pity that we did not have that information when we were discussing the Clause in Committee upstairs. We could then have examined it carefully.

The letter says: Remand homes just haven't the necessary facilities to deal with such a problem even if one were to view it from a security point of view alone (security must obviously be a prime consideration) and, apart from this and other considerations isn't it too much to expect that remand home staffs, small as most of them are, can succeed with this exceptionally difficult and obstreperous young man when long experienced, well-trained adequate approved schools' staffs have already failed? Our experience in dealing with such boys in the past has been such that almost overnight they have tended to destroy or to pollute the tone and atmosphere of our homes despite maximum efforts by superintendents and staffs to win them around, and we have to frankly state that it is just ' wishful thinking to believe that a change of environment like that proposed can effect a change of heart and attitude. I want especially to emphasise these words: … remand homes cater for children as young as ten, nine, and even eight years of age and many of those we receive into our homes are in fact non-delinquent. Isn't it terribly wrong that these same children should find themselves under the self-same remand home roof as those exceptionally difficult, tough, undisciplined and much older young men whom the approved schools just cannot manage? If this Clause becomes law we earnestly believe that despite our greatest effort's to avoid the situation remand homes would soon become little less than junior versions of prisons and the fine efforts by you and your colleagues in the House these days to avoid contamination of young offenders by incorrigible criminals would be offset by the harm done to young people in the remand homes. That is the case for the Amendment. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am afraid that I have an inferiority complex when I ask him to accept one of my Amendments. I do do not know why he should look at me so suspiciously, and I wonder why I cannot win his heart on some of these matters. I appeal to him tonight. The Amendment will not alter the Clause. It will enable the difficult and tough persons to be dealt with, even though I dislike the Clause. The remand homes are doing exceptionally good and valuable work, which I hope will not be damaged in any way by their having to shoulder this additional responsibility.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has moved the Amendment. I realise that there have been anxieties about our intention, purely as a temporary measure, to allow remand homes to be used on occasion, and when necessary, to accommodate difficult boysand girls—and there will always be difficult boys and girls—from approved schools.

I think that I can allay those anxieties. I would point out three factors. First, this is a temporary measure. Secondly, a boy or girl who has been difficult in an approved school is not necessarily going to be difficult when removed from that school. The mere act of removal will often provide a salutary lesson to the child. Also, as was found at Carlton, trouble in an approved school is caused not by a single boy but by a number of boys collectively getting into trouble as a gang in the school. As soon as the gang is broken up, either by removing the leader or by separating the members—providing it is done quickly, hence this emergency procedure—a salutary lesson is provided for each member of the gang. It must not be assumed in every case that because a boy has been difficult in the approved school from which he is removed he will necessarily be difficult in another approved school or remand home, at which he would stay for twenty-eight days, under the Clause.

Thirdly, under subsection (3) an interim order cannot be made until there is an intimation that arrangements have been made—in practice, by the Home Office—for the reception of that person in any other such institution, which includes a remand home. In other words, when an attempt is made by the Home Office to find a place for one of these unruly people in a certain remand home, the managers of that home may say, "We are sorry, but we are full up", in which case it would be an end of the matter, or, "We have room, but we have no detention room. We have no kind of closed unit, or any security arrangements. Is this a case in which security will be required?" If it has been reported to us that security is required, that remand home will not be used for that purpose.

In other words, the subsection acts as a safeguard and provides an assurance that the people in charge of remand homes who do not want these unruly young people to upset them will have the chance to make representations to the Home Office and to discuss the case before there is any question of allocation upon the making of an interim order.

Bearing these factors in mind, it is not unreasonable that we should ask that the remand homes in this country—there are fifty-one of them—should make their contribution—it will not be a very large one—to the solution of what is a very real practical difficulty which we have the duty to try to overcome, and which with the help of hon. Members opposite by their helpful Amendments we are trying to overcome by means of the new procedure in this Clause.

I do not think that I can put my case more clearly or more forcefully than that, but I ask the hon. Member for Lady wood, for whose interest, understanding and opinions I have always had respect, even if I do not always agree with them, and in spite of what he said about my reaction to his actions, to bear these thoughts in mind. I ask him whether we cannot carry him with us in asking that the remand homes of this country should make their modest contribution to the solution of this very considerable practical difficulty.

Miss Bacon

I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) on this Amendment, because I feel particularly strongly about the matter. I do not like the whole of the Clause, but, nevertheless, to think that we can put young people into remand homes just like that, even though the Joint Under-Secretary says there are fifty-one of them, is to disregard the present position with regard to remand homes. I do not want to go over what my hon. Friend has said about the letter that we received today from those who are at work in remand homes.

The point is that there are no places available in many parts of the country in remand homes. In the People last Sunday, in the commentary, there was a paragraph entitled "Comes the truth", which I think was very unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Home Office, because it stated: About live weeks ago, Mr. Dennis Vosper, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, told the House of Commons that there were enough remand homes to serve every area in Britain. But at that very moment a young Huddersfield girl was being remanded in custody for one month, and, after spending six hours telephoning all over the country, the only place that could be found for her was in a remand home at Plymouth—400 miles away. Two police officers then took the girl to Plymouth. They were away from their proper duties for three days. The girl escaped almost at once. Caught and brought back to Huddersfield, she has now been remanded again—but because there is no official home for her, she has been remanded to her own home.

Total cost of the operation has been £100.

So much for Mr. Dennis Vosper's assurances."

The only thing that is wrong with that paragraph is that it was not the Minister of State who was telling us that there were sufficient remand homes. It was indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary, who told us that during the Committee stage.

There are not the places in the remand homes, and the reply which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend about telephoning round to see if there was a place fills me with horror. This young person could not be placed in a remand home, and, according to this Clause, she has to go to some local police station. The police say that she was remanded from an approved school because she was a nuisance, and she was kept for forty-eight hours in the police station. We are now told by the hon. and learned Gentleman that they will be telephoning all round the country, apparently, to see if there is a remand home place, and if there is not, presumably, the boy or girl will stay in the police station. This will be completely unworkable with the present remand home position.

There is a second point raised by my hon. Friend which is even more important. I would say that nearly all the remand homes in the country are less able to deal with the difficult boy or girl than the approved school from which that boy or girl has come. It is preposterous to think of sending these difficult people into remand homes for twenty-eight days. Remand homes are not equipped with the staff, and, as my hon. Friend has said, very young children are there, some of whom have committed no offence whatsoever, and yet we are to have difficult girls and boys of 15 or 16 being placed in remand homes. I think that this will be completely unworkable, and I therefore support my hon. Friend in his Amendment.

Question put, That "or remand home" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 104.

Division No. 134.] AYES [8.56 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Ashton, Sir Hubert Barlow, Sir John
Allason, James Balniel, Lord Batsford, Brian
Arbuthnot, John Barber, Anthony Bell, Ronald
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hastings, Stephen Prior, J. M. L.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Bidgood, John C. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bishop, F. P. Hiley, Joseph Pym, Francis
Black, Sir Cyril Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Rawlinson, Peter
Bossom, Clive Hirst, Geoffrey Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bourne-Arton, A Hobson, John Rees, Hugh
Box, Donald Hocking, Philip N. Renton, David
Boyle, Sir Edward Holland, Philip Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Brewis, John Hollingworth, John Roots, William
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hopkins, Alan Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bryan, Paul Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Russell, Ronald
Buck, Antony Hughes-Young, Michael Scott-Hopkins, James
Bullard, Denys Hurd, Sir Anthony Shaw, M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hutchison, Michael Clark Shepherd, William
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Iremonger, T. L. Skeet, T. H. H.
Cary, Sir Robert Jackson, John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Channon, H. P. G. James, David Spearman, Sir Alexander
Chlchester-Clark, R. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Speir, Rupert
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Stevens, Geoffrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Kaberry, Sir Donald Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cleaver, Leonard Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Stodart, J. A.
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Cooper, A. E. Leburn, Gilmour Storey, Sir Samuel
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Studholme, Sir Henry
Cordle, John Lindsay, Martin Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Corfield, F. V. Litchfield, Capt. John Talbot, John E.
Costain, A. P. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tapsell, Peter
Coulson, J. M. MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford McLaren, Martin Teeling, William
Critchley, Julian Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.) Temple, John M.
Crowder, F. P. McMaster, Stanley R. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Curran, Charles Maginnis, John E. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Currie, G. B. H. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Turner, Colin
Dalkeith, Earl of Markham, Major Sir Frank Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Deedes, W. F. Marten, Neil van Straubenzee, W. R.
de Ferranti, Basil Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Vane, W. M. F.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mawby, Ray Vickers, Miss Joan
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric Mills, Stratton Walder, David
Farr, John Montgomery, Fergus Walker, Peter
Finlay, Graeme Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Ward, Dame Irene
Fisher, Nigel More, Jasper (Ludlow) Webster, David
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Nabarro, Gerald Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Neave, Airey Whitelaw, William
Gammans, Lady Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Gibson-Watt, David Noble, Michael Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Glover, Sir Douglas Osborn, John (Hallam) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Wise, A. R.
Goodhart, Philip Page, John (Harrow, west) Woodhouse, C. M.
Goodhew, Victor Page, Graham (Crosby) Woodnutt, Mark
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Partridge, E. Woollam, John
Green, Alan Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Worsley, Marcus
Gresham Cooke, R. Pike, Miss Mervyn Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Pilkington, Sir Richard
Gurden, Harold Pitt, Miss Edith TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Pott, Percivall Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
NOES
Ainsley, William Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Houghton, Douglas
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Evans, Albert Hoy, James H.
Awbery, Stan Fitch, Alan Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Bacon, Miss Alice Fletcher, Eric Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Benson, Sir George Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Blackburn, F. Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Hunter, A. E.
Boyden, James Forman, J. C. Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Brockway, A. Fenner Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Cliffe, Michael George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Collick, Percy Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. G. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gourlay, Harry Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Crosland, Anthony, Grey, Charles Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Crossman, R. H. S. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Grimond, J. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Come Valley) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hart, Mrs. Judith Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Deer, George Hayman, F. H. MacColl, James
Dempsey, James Herbison, Miss Margaret McInnes, James
Diamond, John Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mallatieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Holman, Percy Manuel, A. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Holt, Arthur Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Millan, Bruce Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Weitzman, David
Mitchison, G. R. Ross, William Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mulley, Frederick Short, Edward White, Mrs. Eirene
Neal, Harold Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Wilkins, W. A.
Oram, A. E. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Oswald, Thomas Small, William Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Owen, will Sorensen, R. W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Spriggs, Leslie Winter-bottom, R. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Steele, Thomas Woof, Robert
Pentland, Norman Stones, William Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Popplewell, Ernest Swingler, Stephen Zilliacus, K.
Proctor, W. T. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Randall, Harry Wade, Donald TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Rankin, John Wainwright, Edwin Mr. Lawson and
Reynolds, G. W. Warbey, William Mr. Charles A. Howell

Amendments made: In page 10, line 6, at end insert: (2) A justice shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if he is a justice for the county or borough in which the approved school first mentioned in that subsection is situated, and is not one of the managers of that school.

In line 10, leave out "a" and insert "any".—[Mr. Renton.]