HC Deb 09 June 1969 vol 784 cc1158-61
Mr. Goodhart

I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 26, line 31, after 'may', insert: 'bring the child before a Juvenile Court and may if the Court so orders'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 78, in page 26, line 34, after 'powers' insert: 'under subsection (2) of this section'.

Mr. Goodhart

Not all children's homes run absolutely smoothly, and it is unfortunately possible for the head of a home to grow to dislike one of the children and to decide that the child is such a menace that it should be locked up. I concede that the local authority must have power to move a child from one sort of accommodation to another, but under Clause 25(2) it will be possible for a child to come into care because of the illness of its parents and then, because of grave personal antagonism, it would be possible for that child to be locked up for a lengthy period without reference of any sort to a court. This seems quite wrong. I do not believe that this kind of accident, as it were, is likely to happen often, but it should not be possible for it to happen at all.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

This requirement would apply irrespective of how the child had come into care in the first instance. The majority of children in care are not there by virtue of any court order. Even in respect of those children who would be in care because the court had earlier made a care order, it would be quite impracticable to require a local authority to obtain a court order before taking immediate measures to do what is necessary to protect the public, including other children in care, from the activities of, say, a seriously disturbed or aggressive child in the authority's care.

This Amendment and the new subsection (5) which the Opposition has proposed, are attempts to restrict the local authority's proper discretion in discharging its responsibility for children who, by one means or another, have been placed in its care. For this reason, they cannot be accepted. When it is necessary to take measures to prevent a child from injuring members of the public, it can usually be argued that it is in the child's interest to prevent him from doing this. But such measures might take the form of placing the child in secure accommodation and it could be argued that this would be bound to deny him some of the opportunities for develop- ment that he would otherwise have and could therefore be said to be against his best interests.

The object of subsection (2) is to prevent any such argument arising. The necessity for local authorities to take measures for the protection of the public arises now, with fit person order children for example, but it may arise more frequently when local authorities are responsible, under care orders, for the care and control of young persons who would at present be sent to approved schools or borstal. It is, therefore, desirable to have it clear that authorities have the power to take such measures, should a case arise in which an authority is in doubt whether the action necessary for the protection of the public could be justified if the interests of the child were the sole consideration.

Mr. Hogg

I do not want to prolong the discussion and, clearly, this is not a matter upon which we should divide, but I have some reservations about the Under-Secretary's answer. What worries some of my hon. Friends and me is the possibility that a child might be caught up in the administrative machine and subjected to administrative restraint and thereby be sunk without trace until it emerges at the age of 18.

Much as one may be filled with admiration for administrative procedures in this country at their best—and, happily, they are at a fairly good best most of the time—one cannot help being a little disconcerted that at their worst and when mistakes are made rather dreadful things can happen.

The Under-Secretary made a powerful case, and I recognise that sometimes a local authority must act in a hurry to protect other people from the activities of a delinquent child. But there is more sense in the principle underlying the Amendment than the hon. Gentleman's criticism of it allows for. I am not saying that in the form in which it has been proposed it is acceptable, because I was impressed by what the Under-Secretary said, but I hope that he will bear in mind what both I and my hon. Friend have said.

If the hon. Gentleman, can find a way of compelling a local authority to come before a court if it has to act in this way, I shall be very grateful if he can put that into effect in another place or in some other way. I do not believe that administrative procedures can ever safeguard the subject against injustice. Publicity and the court are the real protection for the individual, whether a child or an adult, and I think that my hon. Friend's Amendment is sound. The form in which it is couched will probably not be satisfactory, but I hope that, although he has made a case against it, the hon. Gentleman will think of the difficulty again.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to