§ Mr. HileyI beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 57, line 17, after 'period', insert 'exceeding three days'.
The Clause relates to contributions in respect of children and young persons in care. Subsection (2) provides that no contribution shall be made in respect of periods when children are not actually being accommodated in community homes. It has been suggested to some of us by the Association of Municipal Corporations that as the amounts granted by the courts are usually so very small 1172 for a weekend period—and I understand that some children leave the homes for a short week-end break—no deduction should be made for this period of three days, merely because the administrative cost of trying to carry out such a provision would be quite out of proportion to the amounts gained by the parents. The cost of relieving the parents of the charge would be too great in comparison with the amount of money involved.
§ Mrs. KnightEarlier experiences this evening lead me to fear that we are about to hear two excuses why the Amendment should not be made. One is that the children's departments do not have too much to do already and that, therefore, we should not worry because of this other little job. I hope that we do not have that argument again, because I cannot accept it as an argument against trying to relieve children's departments of whatever duties we can. Whether or not this duty would fall on the treasurer's department or, through the department, on the children's department, it is important to try to save local authorities the administrative troubles which are involved in deducting tiny sums of this kind.
The other excuse to which we have been accustomed this evening is that because this procedure already operates, we should let it continue. We have heard that argument at least twice from the Minister, and I hope that he will not advance it on this occasion.
It never seems to be to be a sound reason for allowing something which is not a good idea to continue, that it has been continuing for some time past. Yet that has been the argument advanced on two occasions. It is not really a sound idea that a child's going home for just a short period, at the weekend, say, should involve the local authority in such a silly little bit of bookkeeping, and I hope the force of my hon. Friend's argument will be accepted by the Government.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganIf I was minded to possess myself of excuses the hon. Lady certainly presented two or three on which I might be able to build a case, but I hope that she will listen carefully to what I have to say about the background of the situation, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) will do so, also.
Sections 86 and 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as 1173 amended by Clause 58, place on the parents of a child in the care of a local authority the duty to contribute towards the child's maintenance, and, where payments are not made voluntarily, they empower the court to make a contribution order requiring the parent to pay a weekly sum to the local authority. Clause 58(2) provides that whether or not a contribution order has been made no contribution shall be payable in respect of a child for any period during which he is allowed by the local authority to be under the charge and control of a parent, guardian, relative or friend.
The reason for this provision is to avoid the parent having to pay a contribution in respect of a period during which he is incurring expense himself. The Amendment would limit the exemption so that the parent would still be liable to pay a contribution where this period is three days or less. I hope that the hon. Lady will not think me un-chivalrous, but it is seeking to make the parent liable both for the maintenance of the child and, at the same time, to make a payment to the local authority, as if the local authority were at that time responsible for the maintenance of the child.
Thus, there is a very heavy onus of proof upon her to show that such an Amendment should be made, and, in the circumstances, I doubt very much whether the hon. Lady could discharge such an onus of proof.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this Amendment we can also discuss Amendment No. 108, in page 58, line 3, at end insert:
'but the Court may if it seems necessary in all the circumstances of a particular case to do so make a contribution order at the same hearing as it makes the care order'.
§ Mr. HileyIn spite of the not very helpful response we have just heard to my last Amendment I must pursue this one, because it also relates to the contributions by parents. In practice, I understand, those parents who are asked to 1174 make contributions invariably complain, and particularly complain that the amounts involved are very much more than what the cost would be if the children were in their own care. In spite of that I believe that the amounts usually charged to them are only a small proportion of the cost to the local authorities or to the national Exchequer.
In view of the reluctance of many of them to pay, and, very often, their determination not to pay at any price, the Amendments would ensure easier collection of contributions, which the parent has had to agree to when the case goes before the court. They are often not prepared to contribute, particularly in cases where a child has been wilfully neglected or where a child appears to have been rejected. Much time and effort would be saved if local authorities had a discretion to apply for an immediate contribution order without having to give notice to the contributor and wait for a month. I commend the two Amendments to the Home Secretary; they make it easier to carry out what the court requires.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganThere are two objections to the Amendments. First, the local authority would have no opportunity of proposing an amount to the contributor, and the court would have no information about the parents' means and liabilities on which to base a decision. Secondly, the court, having disposed of the case and made a care order, is unlikely to want to start to inquire on inadequate information into the proper amount of a contribution. If the parent contested the matter, the court could hardly proceed and would have to adjourn. If the parent was not objecting to making a contribution, it is probable that an order would not be required.
The normal course at present is for the local authority to ask the parent for a contribution after obtaining from him a statement of means and, if the contribution is not forthcoming, then, and only then, to make application to the court. The court need not be a juvenile court. This is a better system than for the juvenile court to try to settle this question in the middle of a list of cases.
§ Amendment negatived.