REPEALS

HC Deb 09 June 1969 vol 784 cc1179-89

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 85, column 3, leave out lines 16 and 17.

No. 124, in page 85, line 56, column 3, at end insert: Section 107(2).

No. 125, in page 86, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert: Section 3(3) to (5). In section 4(3), the proviso.

No. 126, in page 86, line 11, column 3, leave out '3(3) to (5)'.

No. 127, in page 90, line 49, column 3, at end insert: 'In section 77(1), the words "on his means"'.—[Mr. Elysian Morgan.]

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Even though the hour is late, perhaps I might begin by expressing my eppreciation of the consideration given to the Bill by the House and by the Standing Committee. In Committee, we had a lot of arguments on merits, but such Divisions as took place were on means rather than on ends. When I moved the Second Reading, I undertook to listen carefully to the arguments advanced in Committee, and I hope that the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have redeemed that promise fully.

Indeed, it is almost unnecessary to make the claim when one considers the number of Amendments which have been accepted by the Government both from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and from my hon. Friends. As a result, the Bill is a better one today than it was when it set out on its voyage some months ago. Some of the Amendments are on points of major importance, and, as a result, the area of agreement over the Bill has been increased.

This is the fulfilment of a personal ambition. When I went to the Home Office, the original White Paper was still on the stocks. The House will be aware that the freedom for manoeuvre among Ministers is not very great, especially when money is limited. But, I thought, here was an opportunity to put something on the stocks to which even the Treasury could not take exception. I am very glad to have been personally associated with the preparation of the Bill and its passage through the House.

I want particularly to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), whose reputation has increased substantially during the progress of the Bill as a result of his handling of it. He was always a "Crown Prince" in Wales, where his abilities are well known. The Bill has introduced him to a wider English audience, who will equally appreciate his virtues.

I want also to thank the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who shared the labour on the Front Bench opposite, for their approach and their courtesy during our consideration of the Bill. As I have said, the area of agreement over the Bill has been increased appreciably. I know that some issues still divide us, and there have been Divisions today, but I think that they were more on method than on ends.

This is a children's Bill, and it should be emphasised that a lot of it is not controversial. It would be worth setting out some of the more important points of agreement. In our discussions, there has been general agreement that care and control run in harness. They are not opposed. They go together.

Secondly, there has been complete agreement that children who are in trouble should, wherever possible and where we can find equally effective or more effective means be dealt with outside the courts and not by the law. That view has been accepted by the Opposition, as it has by the Government. There has been a general desire to encourage parental responsibility, and certainly that is a view which I hold strongly.

There has been general agreement that we should seek to provide children with the necessary support, guidance and control that they need. There has also been agreement that liability to criminal prosecution should start at a somewhat higher age than the tenth birthday. Some think that the higher age should be 12. Others think that it should be school-leaving age. The Government believe that it should be the fourteenth birthday. But this is a matter which is left not for further consideration but for its implementation to be effected by means of an operational order which the House will have to agree.

I should emphasise, once again, that there has been agreement on the necessity for retaining the juvenile courts. I mention them in particular because I should not want anybody to think from the course of the debate that I under-estimate their importance or, indeed, that of the work of the probation officers who have conducted a very worthwhile and interesting campaign to ensure that their point of view and activities are fully known and appreciated by all Members of the House. There are some situations which require the intervention of a court, and the safeguards provided by courts remain as essential as ever.

I trust that I have been able to dispel some of the fears that were expressed about the nature of informal action which is taken when there are no court proceedings. This is on a genuinely voluntary basis. We have had a discussion on this earlier, and I do not propose to go over it again now.

There is agreement on the need to provide a comprehensive system of residential establishments for children which embrace not only the present local authority children's homes, but local authority and voluntary approved schools and those voluntary children's homes which wish to join the new system. This is a major revolution in the organisation of residential child care, and one that I have felt for many years was needed. I believe that it increases and improves the opportunity for getting the right treatment for the child. It does not narrow it; it broadens it.

There has also been general agreement about the desirability of building up more flexible methods of treatment, halfway between supervision in the home and removal from home, as provided for particularly in Clauses 12 and 19.

I do not propose to go over the points of difference in detail, except in relation to the matter that I referred to as one of the main planks of the Bill, namely, the comprehensive system of residential establishments. Some people have expressed the fear that this might lead to mixing up children with totally different needs. On the contrary, it is the very reverse. The fact that we shall have such a broad system of homes will make it possible to separate out children according to their needs much more clearly than we can today. The fact that there will be more homes available means that we can divide them up in a much more rational way.

The selection of a community home for each child will be based on the assessment of his individual needs and problems and of the full range of possibilities that will exist for meeting these needs. Homes offering specialised treatment would be unsuitable for children whose need is for ordinary care and community life while having to live away from home. These homes will be able to be brought into perhaps rather more rational use than up to now, although I should not like anything that I say to be interpreted as subtracting from my appreciation of the work that has been and is being done by them. The variety of facilities which will become available will be used sensibly in accordance with the needs of the individual children.

Concern has been expressed about the extent of the responsibilities which the Bill places on local authorities. I have said before, and I repeat, that the purposes of the Bill will be achieved only if it is introduced at a time when the local authority structure can stand the additional weight that will be placed upon it. I do not wish to shrink from that. I believe that it is the right approach to place substantial extra responsibilities upon the local authorities.

The essence of a care order under the Bill, as of a fit person order, as it is called in the jargon under the present law, is to make the local authority responsible for the care or control of the child That is the object of the Bill. There is widespread, though not universal, agreement that this is the way we should go. If the authority is to be answerable for any failure of care or control, it needs the power to select the arrangements which are best calculated to meet the needs of the particular child.

The philosophy of the Bill is to preserve all the necessary judicial safeguards for the child and his parents, but to place upon the local authority full responsibility for the care and control of the child once the court has made a care order. We cannot expect the local authorities to carry out this responsibility unless we give them the power to do so. They have had a great deal of experience in this matter already. I am told that nearly one-third of the 4,500 fit person orders made annually are made in criminal proceedings. This experience stretches back over 35 years of entrusting local authorities with the responsibility to act as substitute parents for children of all kinds, including those who have broken the law and been prosecuted.

There is nothing new about this. They have the experience already. The way that experience has been discharged is conclusive proof that it is right in the Bill to embrace within the system those children who are now sent to approved schools and in due course those under 17 who are now sent to borstal.

If we believe, as we do, that court proceedings against children should be avoided where possible, it follows that the same positive discrimination should be exercised in deciding whether a child need be taken to court, and in deciding what form of voluntary help, guidance or treatment should be given to those who are not taken to court. In this sense, Clause 1(2) is discriminatory. It is intended to be. I wanted it to be. The House has agreed that it should be. It requires the exercise of a sensible discrimination by the police. Indeed, they exercise that discrimination now over a wide field. It requires the exercise of a sensible discrimination by local authorities and all other agencies concerned in deciding how best to deal with each individual child.

It turns the argument upside down to suggest that this is not fair. It is a matter of elementary social justice that children should be dealt with according to their individual needs and that they should be looked at in this light. I believe that these proposals in the Bill introduce a greater element of fairnesss and a greater opportunity for certain children who do not possess this opportunity at present.

Finally, whatever the differences may have been, whatever views may have been advanced on behalf of particular groups of persons, all of whom are desperately anxious to do their job of helping children, I know that now that the Bill is likely to receive a Third Reading and move oil its way, all of the organisations in this field will work together for the benefit of children. I have every confidence of this. Indeed, one of the attractive things about being Home Secretary is that one sees such dedication, not only from voluntary members in the community who want to dedicate themselves, but from the professional staff, too.

I am very proud of the degree of dedication that there is among the professional staff. It destroys much of the cynicism that is sometimes expressed about the future of Britain in some of the more erudite journals. There are many people in Britain doing a very good job, not only because they are paid for it, but because they believe in it and because they have a sense of service and are trying to give expression to it.

I thank the House again for the way that it has considered the Bill with such care and attention. The Bill is devoted only to the end of securing the very best for children in society as it exists at present. It aims to combine care with control. It aims to be humane but it also aims to be effective. It aims to combine social justice with protection for the liberty of the subject. It is part of the process of further social development to which my colleagues and I are devoted and which, in this field, I believe is shared by all those in the House who have the welfare of children at heart.

2.45 a.m.

Mrs. Knight

I want to raise a small point on Clause 1 at this stage, which is the very last chance there is to raise it. It could be put right even at this late stage if the Minister would accept it.

We had a debate during the Committee stage about what some of us felt to be the stupidity of having the word "avoidably" in line 17, on page 1. We talked about a child's proper development being prevented or neglected, and said that whether it was avoidably prevented or neglected ought not to weigh. At the end of the discussion we agreed that the matter would be met if two commas were inserted, otherwise quite ridiculous situations could arise where a child's development was being avoidably neglected. The Minister did say that he would look at this again in column 33 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the first sitting of the Committee, and on the understanding that he would look at it again, and insert the commas if he felt it wise to do so, I withdrew the Amendment.

I gave notice to the Minister that I would raise this point today.

2.46 a.m.

Mr. Lane

I wish the Bill well, but I feel some doubt whether it is going to work out as the Government expect. I would like at this last moment to make a strong plea to the Government that they should proceed very cautiously in fixing the appointed day and bringing into effect the various provisions of the Bill, and I want to touch upon the two most obvious and important reasons for this.

I think that we all recognised during our debates that to be successful the Bill will require a considerable increase in the development of facilities and staff. We have had assurances from the Government that they are well aware of this problem. I would remind them of these assurances now, because if they try to introduce the new provisions with undue haste it would be disastrous and would undo much of the benefit which we all want to follow from the Bill.

To some extent related to that is the problem of expense. In my own area it has been estimated that the Bill, taking everything into account, will result in an increase in annual expenditure by local authorities on child care of about 10 per cent. It is being regarded as one more extra burden on the ratepayers and taxpayers. I do not want to exaggerate the financial effect, but at a time when we have got used to accepting many burdens from the Government I hope that the Government will do everything possible to cushion the financial effects of the Bill.

I want to make a final appeal to the Government. There is a great deal of concern on these points among people who are in general sympathy with the Government's approach, so in carrying out the Bill let the Government go carefully and cautiously.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Longden

I was not on the Committee, but I have followed the Bill with great interest and a good deal of anxiety from time to time. It is, as other hon. Members have said, a most important measure. In Hertfordshire, for example, we find that the majority of offences detected by the police are committed by young persons under 21, and of these the larger proportion are under 17; some are even of primary school age.

I have wondered whether we may not be in some danger of forgetting that our juvenile courts, under the present system, have achieved a very high success rate and have most successfully maintained a balance between the need to protect society and the need to protect those who are too young to protect themselves. Of course, everything is capable of improvement, but I have wondered from time to time whether all the changes we are making by the Bill are changes for the better.

I have wondered, more particularly, whether we are not giving to local authorities and social workers duties of a judicial, or at least quasi-judicial nature, which should be the sole prerogative of the bench. I have sent the Home Secretary a letter from a very distinguished police officer, and I would like to remind him of some sentences of it. As I understand it, the object is to avoid bringing children and young persons before a juvenile court. Instead, it is proposed to give young offenders informal advice and guidance. In the majority of cases—presumably, such as wilful damage—there are to be investigations and reports and prior consultations between children's officers, teachers, social workers and the police as to whether a prosecution is to be instituted. … My view, which is shared by other police officers, is that in practice this procedure will cause delay, extra work and extra expense without achieving any good result. There are not enough children's officers to operate the scheme. I cannot think that informal advice and guidance is going to do much to reduce hooliganism in cases, for instance, where youths of 15 and 16 have deliberately smashed up public lavatories or private pram sheds or hurled milk bottles against blocks of flats. It will, I fear, undermine the authority of police officers who have to enforce the law if they no longer have the power to prosecute but must abide a decision reached later on by debate with children's officers and social workers. What is needed in such cases is prompt and firm action. I think that the Home Secretary would agree with that. We must hope that these somewhat pessimistic prognostications do not come about.

I should like to refer to the debate that we had some hours ago on Clause 1(2). I do not think I have ever heard a debate where from both sides of the House there was only one side to the argument. It was a devastating criticism of this Clause, and I reinforce the plea of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that the Home Secretary should think again about that Clause between now and when the Bill goes to another place.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Goodhart

I, too, share the hopes of my hon. Friends and the Home Secretary that the Bill will be helpful in curbing juvenile delinquency throughout the country. But I must say that I do not share the enthusiasm of the Home Secretary for the idea that children and society are best protected outside the law. It seems to me that over the years it is the law and the courts that have been the best protection for the public and for the liberties of the individuals who come before the courts.

At the same time, it strikes me as odd that we end our debate on this Bill within 36 hours of the publication of a report which will mark a fundamental change in the structure of local government. As the Home Secretary has said, the Bill will put fresh pressures on the local authorities. It seems to me strange, when I recall that discussions about the Bill have extended back over the last 10 years, that the Government should now be seeking to push the Bill through just when the local government structure of this country will he changed for 10 years to come.

I was not wholly encouraged by the Home Secretary's remarks about the Treasury. I fear that it will be an effort in the near future to try to make the Bill work on the cheap. Perhaps the Treasury does not appreciate the amount of extra effort that will have to be made if it is to work. I do not mean primarily in financial terms. The extra cost to local authorities has been estimated at £5 million after rate support grant. That means locally perhaps 2d. on the rates.

It is important that staff should be available before the Bill is implemented. Here, I am afraid, we shall run into substantial difficulties. Staff in sufficient numbers and of sufficient quality to make the reforms suggested a reality will be far harder to get, to train, and then to keep than the Government appear to appreciate. So, while I join with the Home Secretary in hoping that the Bill will do good, having sat through all the debates on it, I have my doubts.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Hogg

I endorse every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and my other hon. Friends on Third Reading. I fully share their reservations about the Bill. I think the Home Secretary has been a little over-optimistic in his commendation of it to the House.

I make a personal apology to the House. Those who have been sufficiently observant have noticed my somewhat eccentric behaviour during the evening. Having disappeared for three hours, I urged my hon. Friends into the Lobby and failed myself to vote. That was due to the fact that my car broke down and I provided myself with a "pair" which subsequently I did not need. I hope that hon. Members on either side of the House will not criticise me unduly.

I thank the Home Secretary particularly for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He has taken a close interest in the Bill even before its inception. But for his constant assistance, I do not know whether we could have manned the Front Bench either in debates in the House or in Committee. I say the same about my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley).

I endorse the Home Secretary's praise for the Under Secretary. We on this side of the House thought that he carried out his duties not only with skill, but with considerable tact and reasonableness. We are grateful to him for the way in which he has handled this whole piece of legislation, and it should be known that we are grateful.

I agree with the Home Secretary that the Bill has improved during its passage through Parliament. The first White Paper the Government produced was horrible, the second White Paper was only marginally less horrible, and the Bill was pretty horrible when it came to Second Reading, but it is less horrible now. To that extent I can share the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for it. But I still feel that there are grave deficiencies about what is now proposed. We have had our debates on the first two Clauses and I still feel that the individual is not sufficiently protected against inequality of treatment and injustice.

But the real trouble about the Bill—and I think that it will emerge as time goes on—is that which was described at greater length by my hon. Friends. It will do no good at all unless it incurs considerable expense. I am convinced that when it is implemented in its more expensive form its provisions as it stands will prove to be wrong in the light of the changes in local government which are shortly to be made and changes in the social services if and when the Seebohm Report is implemented.

That being so, although many of the Bill's provisions are uncontroversial, as I think the Home Secretary said, and was perfectly right and fully entitled to say, at the end of the day my reservations remain about it. This in no way qualifies either my praise for the Under-Secretary or the Home Secretary for the way in which they have kept their promise to listen to our criticisms, or my agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said about my hon. Friends and other Members who have made contributions to the Bill. At the end of the day there can be no question of a party division or a Division at all on the Third Reading. I hope that my misgivings are wholly unfounded, as no doubt the Home Secretary thinks they are. Time alone will show which of us is right.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.