HC Deb 17 July 1968 vol 768 cc1472-81
Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 23, after 'welfare', insert: 'including the specified functions of school welfare officers and specialist social workers'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 31, in Clause 59, page 35, line 13, after 'establishments', insert: 'including assessment and specialist centres'.

Mr. Hannan

On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Amendment No. 31 does not deal with exactly the same point as Amendment No. 6 and that it would be more convenient, certainly for me, if the two were discussed separately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's request. This is Mr. Speaker's selection. He selected Amendment No. 31 for debate only with Amendment No. 6, and not for a separate Division.

Mr. Brown

I make no apology for tabling the Amendment because it raises a matter which was not adequately discussed either in Committee or in another place. It is significant in the sense that, as with so many other things, Scotland is a little ahead of the rest of the country.

The main arguments for the Amendment were not adduced in Committee, mainly because on the morning when Clause 12 should have been discussed tempers were somewhat frayed, doors were being banged and various points of orders were being raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not wish to encourage hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce the same atmosphere today. Suffice to say that the Clause sneaked through with the first part of it being relatively ignored. Very little was said in the Lords about it, although it raises, because it deals with the generality of the provisions in the Bill, the whole question of the sort of social work department that we wish to see.

Reference has been made to Lord Kilbrandon. It is interesting to note that it was stated in paragraph 1 of the White Paper "Social Work and the Community": The other"— recommendation from the Kilbrandon Committee was a 'social education department' of the education authority, formed by the merger of existing organisations concerned with children's special needs which would provide all the facilities necessary for the care, treatment and training of these children. It is in this context that it is relevant to argue for the inclusion of school welfare officers and, as the Amendment proposes, specialist social workers.

I have suggested that, from the point of school welfare work, we in Scotland are a little ahead of the rest of the country. I am delighted to say that in Glasgow we are somewhat ahead of the rest of Scotland in that Glasgow has the only local education authority with school welfare officers. Glasgow employs 20 at present, and while that number is not enough, it provides a challenge to other authorities.

The functions of a school welfare officer are, to some extent relatively new. He has a range of activities and functions which include more than the problems arising from the non-attendance of children at school. As the White Paper suggests in paragraph 20: The Government"— and we should remember that this is a Government White Paper think, however, that responsibility for providing school welfare services should be assigned to the new department"— that is, the social work department and that existing education authority staff employed specifically on welfare duties should be brought into it. By continuing to work in the closest association with teachers, they could form an effective link between the schools and the social services generally. Obviously the Government have changed their mind. Critics of the Government often suggest that they should change their mind more often. Certainly on this issue they have changed it between the time when the White Paper was discussed and the production of the Bill. Both the White Paper and the Kilbrandon Report proved the need to include social welfare officers.

We then come to the question of specialist social workers. I concede that there is more room for disagreement about this aspect. However, referring in paragraph 11 to those with special skills, the White Paper commented: Their employment in one department would, however, permit much greater flexibility of deployment than is now practicable … The case has been well made out, although the matter was not examined in detail in the White Paper, for all social workers—irrespective of any added training and qualifications to their basic skills—to be employed in one department, so that their specialist knowledge and techniques may be diverted to the various areas which need them.

It does not seem unreasonable that hospital almoners—they now go under the new title of medical social workers— should also come within the social work department. That does not mean that hospitals and other places where these people are employed would be denuded of their specialist staff. The same argument could be applied to probation officers. In view of their approach to training and so on, it would be advisable for them to start off in one department, and then be hived off to other areas, rather than being merely offshoots of a service which is fundamentally similar but which is completely separate.

I raise this matter because it is the key to the whole philosophy of this part of the Bill. I have a great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he wishes to say this in his election address, he can announce that I consider him to be a man of great charm, ability and compassion. However, he has a weakness.

Mr. Ross

Only one?

Mr. Brown

It is a weakness shared by many of us. My right hon. Friend is not noted for changing his mind. On this occasion I am not asking him to change his mind but to return to the original thoughts of the White Paper. I am not at all optimistic about his accepting the Amendment. I hope, however, that he will make encouraging noises and say that the Scottish office will look with keen interest at the way in which local authorities act when they set up the new social work department. In other words, I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that every encouragement will be given, as the Amendment suggests, to authorities to bring all social workers with common skills and knowledge into one department. It is not just a question of centralisation for the sake of efficiency in terms of the more efficient use of labour. I think that it makes sense.

Having said a few kind words about the Secretary of State, I am sure that he will respond, if not by suggesting that we do something now, at least in the sense of looking to the future and saying that my ideas are consistent with the philosophy of the White Paper and what we are all trying to do. I hope that he will give my ideas every blessing.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hannan

I want to support these two Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has spent some time on the first of them, and I shall dwell mainly on the second one.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to try and meet the need for an effective integrated service. There is a variety of agencies, and it is hoped that where different members of the same family have individual problems, the one service can deal with them all. However, although it was originally intended to bring all the services together, that will not now happen because of an Amendment which was made at an earlier stage.

The first Amendment deals with welfare officers of local authorities. As I understand it, they are to be appointed in addition to the attendance officers who are employed by education authorities in the counties and cities. They will continue their job, of course, and they are very valuable people in the sense that at an early stage they will be able to report weaknesses in a family structure which could give rise to trouble in the future. As I understand it, one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with these at an early stage and so prevent some of our young people going awry later.

However, as far as I know, welfare officers are employed in only one local authority, and that is Glasgow. Counties which are education authorities will be able to employ such people if they wish, but in component parts of counties which are not education authorities, it will not be possible to engage them. Is this the reason for the Government's reluctance to include this class of social workers?

The White Paper indicates clearly that the Government think that the responsibility for providing school welfare services should be assigned to the new Department. At an earlier stage, they indicated that attendance officers proved an invaluable source of early warning of children's and family problems because bad attendance at school often indicated such problems. If there is a link-up between attendance officers and school welfare officers, who will be skilled social workers, part of the problem can be dealt with at an early stage.

The other Amendment deals with assessment centres and the provision of what used to be called remand homes; in other words, accommodation for young people who are in trouble. However, we are concerned not only with accommodation for children, because the responsibility is put on local authorities to pro-side various categories of accommodation for disability, old age and other groups of various types. These in turn call for staff of varying skills to deal with the different problems. A wide range of specialised facilities is needed, for example, for the mentally handicapped. All these requirements will call for remand homes, detention centres, borstals, diagnostic clinics, old people's homes, and the rest of it.

However, under Clause 37(2) for example, a child shall not be detained if the reporter considers that compulsory treatment is not required. The time for which a child can be detained will be cut down. But the immediate point to which I want to come is how children are treated if, for instance, they are detained in a police office.

It will come as no surprise to some hon. Members, although some of us were horrified when we learned of it, that children held in a police office and taken to a former remand home for four days before their cases are heard may be relieved of their clothes and given khaki shirts and shorts and different shoes to wear. One can imagine the indignity of that, especially if, subsequently, they are found innocent of the charges against them. I had such a case in my constituency not very long ago.

The intention behind these Amendments is to ask my right hon. Friend whether consideration has been given to these- two points. If it has, why are school welfare officers not included in this part of the Bill? If the short answer is that they are, one will feel almost constrained to apologise to the House for taking up its time, but great value is placed on such officers locally. As for the point about accommodation, probably my right hon. Friend will say that the Bill provides for short detention, that it will not be protracted, that the panel will meet on the day after a child has been apprehended so that the period of detention is cut down. But may I remind him that under other Clauses a child may be detained for three or four days and, in some instances, up to 21 days? I would like an assurance that proper accommodation will be provided. At present, it is quite inadequate. In cases of certain unruly children, the treatment given is not determined by the needs of the child but by the accommodation available. That is quite wrong. I would like an assurance that the accommodation will be adequate for the treatment of children and that, pending the time that the panel meets, no child will feel that he has already been adjudged guilty and is being treated as such. That has happened in some instances.

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) had a few soft and flattering words to say about me. However, I do not know what he expects from me. He knows quite well that I am not given to changing my mind. He read a passage from the White Paper which suggested that in the opinion of the Government school welfare officers should be included. I have not changed my mind. School welfare officers are included. So, if my hon. Friend likes to apologise—

Mr. Hannan

Certainly I will do that.

Mr. Ross

Any other apologies will be gratefully received for this misunderstanding of what is intended. There is no doubt about it.

There is no statutory obligation on any local authority to employ a school welfare officer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan suggested, this is one of the positions in which Glasgow leads.

I could not accept the Amendment because it is misconceived and would be restrictive. One of the things we want to do is to get away from narrow specialisms. I do not want this new Department to have the same sort of divisions which now exist. We have to develop much wider specialisms which will enable us to get a measure of inter-changeability. There is no doubt that much of the work to be done will bring social workers into contact with the schools, and it would be wrong to ignore that aspect. Equally, it is undesirable to define in a Statute how this will work. There is no doubt that the Social Work Department will be able to undertake social work in co-operation with the schools and to place some of its staff in schools in places like Glasgow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill spotted a defect in the Amendment when he discussed local authorities, which would include large burghs, which, apart from the cities, are not education authorities. That is another technical fault in his Amendment. I understand his concern and I appreciate that he was merely probing to see whether we had forgotten or overlooked anything.

Although he did not say so, I gathered that he was dealing with Amendment No. 31. A statutory duty to provide specialist centres would not be effective unless the kinds of specialist centres were to be defined, and the definition would have to be in the Bill. Before we knew where we were, we might find that that definition had become out of date and even that it was retarding development. Assessment is an integral part of social work and adequate assessment centres will be necessary, but it would be misleading to imply that assessments can be made properly only in an assessment centre, or that the name "assessment centre" has a generally recognised meaning. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend was right in what he had to say about the kind of place and the kind of treatment required for young people.

We are sympathetic towards this idea, but we are limited. In the past we have had Bills involving remand homes or other kinds of centres, and yet we have never provided adequate establishments. That has been one of the troubles in the remand of prisoners, old and young, for a long time.

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we share his concern and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Provan will appreciate that we understand the point he has raised.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

On that generous assurance, which emphasises my point that we had not discussed this matter adequately, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'in their area'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It may be convenient with this to discuss Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 28, leave out from 'adequate' to end of line 31, and Amendment No. 10. I ought to point out that Amendment No. 9 has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for a Division.

Mr. Millan

When the Clause was discussed in Committee, there was a good deal of criticism about the drafting, and a number of hon. Members felt that there was some repetition which meant that, taken as a whole, the Clause was very difficult to follow, particularly those provisions about giving assistance in the form of cash or in the form of kind to persons in need. I promised that I would consider the drafting to see whether we could tighten and improve it, and the three Government Amendments are almost exclusively directed towards that end, although there are one or two minor matters of which we have taken care at the same time.

Basically, what we have done is to make the subsections more intelligible and made it easier to see what it is we are trying to achieve. In doing so, we have removed three lines about authorities proceeding in accordance with guidance which the Secretary of State may give, because, as was pointed out, that provision is inherent in the Bill as a whole in view of the general powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 5.

I hope that with that explanation the House will feel that the Clause is much clearer and that the Amendments are therefore acceptable.

Mr. MacArthur

These Amendments follow the hon. Gentleman's undertaking in Committee carefully to consider the drafting which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) and I severely criticised. In its original form, the Clause was a memorable example of bureaucratic verbosity and I am glad that its length has now been cut considerably. In its amended version, the Clause will lose nothing, but it will gain substantially and the gain is that of comprehension. The Clause is now much clearer. Amendment Mo. 10 alone has the effect of cutting out 41 lines and introducing 22 in their place, almost halving the length of that major part of the Clause. The Clause is considerably improved by the Amendments, and I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary for fulfilling his word so thoroughly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 8, in page 8, line 25 leave out first 'in' and insert 'for'.

No. 10, in page 8, line 29 leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 9 and insert: 'such assistance may be given to, or in respect of, the persons specified in the next following subsection, in kind or in cash subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

(2) The persons specified for the purposes of the foregoing subsection are—

  1. (a) a person, being a child under the age of eighteen, requiring assistance in kind, or in exceptional circumstances in cash, where such assistance appears to the local authority likely to diminish the need—
    1. (i) to receive him into, or to keep him in, care under this Part of this Act, or
    2. (ii) of his being referred to a children's hearing under Part III of this Act;
  2. (b) a person in need requiring assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances constituting an emergency, in cash, where the giving of assistance in either form would avoid the local authority being caused greater expense in the giving of assistance in another form, or where probable aggravation of the person's need would cause greater expense to the local authority on a later occasion.

(3) Before giving assistance to, or in respect of. a person in cash under subsection (1) of this section a local authority shall have regard to his eligibility for receiving assistance from any other statutory body and, if he is so eligible, to the availability to him of that assistance in his time of need.

(4) Assistance given in kind or in cash to, or in respect of, persons under this section may be given unconditionally or subject to such conditions as to the repayment of the assistance, or of its value, whether in whole or in part, as the local authority may consider reasonable having regard to the means of the person receiving the assistance and to the eligibility of the person for assistance from any other statutory body.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Forward to