HC Deb 12 April 1961 vol 638 cc408-12
Mr. Weitzman

I beg to move, in page 28, line 23, to leave out from "release" to the end of line 25.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss with that Amendment the Amendment in page 28, line 26, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Weitzman

Yes.

I should like to explain what the Amendment seeks to do. Clause 14 (1) provides the power to release a person from detention in an approved school at any time. Under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule he is subject to compulsory supervision in accordance with the provisions therein laid down. He is subject to such compulsory supervision for a period of two years from the date of his release or until he attains the age of 21, whichever is the earlier.

11.45 p.m.

Under those provisions, after his release the managers have power to recall him at any time. But the period of compulsory supervision runs from the date of the original release, so that if a child detained when he is 11 is released when he is 12 and recalled when he is 13, the period of compulsory supervision runs from the date of his release, that is, when he is 12 years of age, and therefore expires when he is 14, when he is still under detention. When he is released at the end of the period of detention there is no power to impose compulsory supervision, although that is the very time, when he is 15, that he requires it most.

It may be said that there is a provision for voluntary supervision, but that depends on the consent of the child concerned, and if he is the sort of child who needs supervision it is very unlikely that he will consent. The alteration which the Bill makes in the law concerning supervision is regarded with much apprehension by many headmasters of approved schools. They take the view that it is most important that when persons are released at the end of a period of detention, particularly with boys of 15, there should be a power to impose a period of compulsory supervision. I raised this matter in Committee and the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he appreciated the importance of it and would look into it. Since then he has been good enough to write to me commenting on the matter, and I saw that the comments he made were passed on to the headmasters' association, so that they might be appreciated by that organisation.

These headmasters are persons of very practical experience, and they take the view that by limiting the period of compulsory supervision and dating it from the original release we are causing a difficulty. They feel that from a practical point of view, whenever a child is released there should be a period of compulsory supervision. They also feel that at the end of a period of detention, if the child concerned is 15 years of age there should be a period of compulsory supervision.

In putting down the Amendment I have sought to cut out the words which provide that the period shall run from the date of the original release. In other words, I have sought to provide that there should be a period of compulsory supervision after any release, whether it be before the period of detention has expired or at the end of that period. It may be said that this is a rather clumsily-worded Amendment. I tried to draft it a little more adroitly, but it is extremely difficult to do so in a complicated Schedule of this kind. I thought I ought to get the point clearly before the House by wording the Amendment in this way.

I put it before the House on this basis. Here we have headmasters of approved schools with many years of practical experience who feel that a real difficulty has been created by this provision and that there ought to be provision for compulsory supervision after any release, and certainly after the period of detention has come to an end.

Mr. Renton

We have considered very carefully the views which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has put forward tonight, of which he was kind enough to give us previous notice. The effect of his first Amendment would be that the two years period of compulsory supervision would start afresh whenever the young person was released after recall and would run for two years from the date of the second or subsequent release, unless meanwhile he reached the age of 21.

The second Amendment would delete the whole of paragraph 4, which is quite an important paragraph of this Second Schedule. The paragraph which would be deleted makes provision in the case of a young person who is originally released from an approved school in England or Wales before the date on which the approved school after-care provisions of the Bill come into force, but, having been recalled to his school, is again released on or after that date. In that case the period of two years compulsory supervision, with liability to recall, is to be computed from the date of the original release under the old provisions.

We feel that both these Amendments must be resisted, and I hope I can carry the House with me on that. The indefinite prolongation of compulsory supervision by making it possible for the two-year period to start running afresh, perhaps twice, or even three times in a rare case, is contrary to the whole spirit of the after-care provisions of the Bill. The first Amendment would enable the managers of an approved school to use their power of recall in such a way as to keep a boy or girl under compulsory supervision—I stress the word "compulsory"—right up to the age of 20. Although there is no reason to suppose that managers would exercise their powers in that way, there seems no reason why it should be made even theoretically possible for them to do so. We feel we should steer clear of that danger.

We feel it important that the liability to after-care of people detained in approved schools like that of other offenders subject to after-care should be clearly defined and limited in time. We have gone out of our way to do that in regard to the compulsory supervision of adult offenders under the Third Schedule and we feel this principle should be applied to all types of after-care.

For these reasons, I must say that the Amendments do not find sympathy in our minds.

Miss Bacon

I should have thought there was a great deal of merit in the first Amendment. If a young person coming from an approved school has been released two or three times, which shows that that person has been back to the school two or three times, surely that is exactly the kind of person for whom there should be a longer period of compulsory supervision. In this respect my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has made a valid point in regard to his first Amendment.

Amendment negatived.