CONTROL OF PREMISES USED FOR, AND CONDUCT OF, COMMUNITY HOMES (Hansard, 9 June 1969)

§ Mr. Miscampbell
I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 41, line 32, at end insert: 'and of a Juvenile Court'. 1168 The Amendment deals with Clause 40(c), which requires the approval of the Secretary of State to the provision of accommodation for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children in community homes. It imposes another requirement for the placing of a child in such accommodation. The Clause provides that before a child is placed in such accommodation, the permission of the local authority and a voluntary organisation is required. We seek to add to those the juvenile court.
Once a child is into the system, he is completely at the mercy, albeit the tender mercy, of the local authority which may move him from one home to another without the aye or nay of anyone, subject to the provisions laid down in Clause 40. Certainly, he may be moved from an open home into one where his liberty is restricted and which is indistinguishable from an approved school today.
We feel that an outside body should say whether a child should, in fact, he sent to an approved school where his liberty is restricted and that outside body would appear to be most appropriately the juvenile court which in the ordinary way would have had to deal with him and send him to an approved school as the law stands. But, by mere administrative decision, with certain safeguards which are only internal and administrative, he could be moved to an approved school or its equivalent.
For those reasons, we believe that an outside body should scrutinise and scrutinise carefully before any child is put into an enclosed establishment.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I have every sympathy with the sentiments articulated by the hon. Member, but there is no basis on which the juvenile court would be properly involved in the decision of a local authority in respect of a child in its care provided in accommodation approved for the restriction of liberty. The juvenile court may have had no dealings with the child and even if the child is subject to a care order, the proper question for the court to determine is whether the order is to remain in force, and to this end application may be made at any time for the court to discharge the order under Clause 21(2).

§ Mr. Callaghan
I beg to move Amendment 102, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'by local authorities and voluntary organisations'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment we can also discuss Amendments 79 and 103.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The Amendment results from the consideration which the Government have given, as promised in Committee by my hon. Friend, to the question of how to provide for the judgment of an independent person to play some part when a local authority reviews arrangements for a child in its care. The safeguards provided by Clauses 25(4) and 21(2) are substantial. They place a statutory duty on local authorities to review each child's case at least once every six months, but the children accommodated in secure conditions are special cases and the local authority must be fully answerable for the welfare of such children.
I have no doubt that the local authorities will take great pains, but having considered what was said in Committee, it is right that the law should provide that there should be no risk, however slight, of a child being kept in secure accommodation for perhaps a protracted period without some independent person having a say in what is being done.
The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the criticisms made in Committee. There is a limitation on the independent person's intervention, but nevertheless it is pretty comprehensive, and I hope that the House will feel that we have tried to meet the points made.

§ Mr. Worsley
We are grateful to the Government for meeting the points made in Committee. The decision of the House not to have a three-yearly review by the court makes this provision even more important. We have tabled an Amendment to Clause 25 on these lines. In Committee, and in our Amendment we laid stress on the value of having a magistrate as part of the reviewing machinery. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the regulation he would make would or could include magistrates in such determinations? The experience of magistrates would be particularly valuable. There is something to be said, if there is no review by the court for a long time, as is now to be 1170 the case, for actually having a magistrate among those reviewing cases. The concept of the review having an independent element is one which we very much welcome.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Regulations will provide that a magistrate could operate, but I would prefer not to make it mandatory that it should be a magistrate, because I have found from my own experience in other connections that sometimes it is quite difficult to get a magistrate to do these things. We can all think of other persons who may not be magistrates but who, nevertheless, might have some connection with the law—a local solicitor, for example. There are a number of people who have a direct or indirect connection with these matters who could do the job. I would certainly hope to see a good sprinkling of magistrates among those independent persons considering these cases.