HC Deb 09 June 1969 vol 784 cc1137-41
Mrs. Knight

I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 14, line 27, after 'exercising', insert 'or has exercised'.

I make no secret of the fact that I dislike subsection (2) of this Clause and would prefer it to be removed. It puts the probation officer in a position servile to the local authority. A more important aspect of what the subsection does with regard to the probation officer and the courts is expressed in a letter I have received from a probation officer, who says: My colleagues and I feel that this is quite wrong as it takes away from the juvenile court a jurisdiction which it should be in a position to exercise to select the most appropriate supervisor for a particular case. It seems unethical for a local authority to have the power to agree whether or not to accept supervision and at the same time for a juvenile court not to have the power to place a child under the supervision of a probation officer unless the local authority so requests. I am most concerned about this matter, because it seems to me that it downgrades the probation officer. He is enabled by the subsection only to take a case under certain circumstances. That is a great pity, because the record of our probation service is excellent. Although the Home Secretary said earlier that there were parts that could be bettered most of us who have had anything to do with cases with which a probation officer has been dealing have been extremely impressed by the way in which probation officers work and their knack of squeezing a drop of success from a stone of intractability.

Even more serious, the subsection places the judiciary fairly and squarely under the orders of the Administration, and this is deplorable. My Amendment suggests that where a probation officer has had contact with the family he may have dealings with the family again,. This contact may not have been with the person about whom the court is currently concerned. In almost every case where probation officers have had such contact they have become known and trusted by the family.

I have listened most carefully to everything that has been said about the duties of the probation officer and the children's officer in their new rôles under the Bill, and nothing so far said by the Home Secretary or his hon. Friend has begun to convince me that it is a good idea to remove from the probation officer his ability to deal with cases with which he could cope extremely well.

We have talked about the load the Bill places on children's departments, and one is concerned about their ability to cope with all the extra work being removed from the probation officers. The Home Secretary has told us that the Bill will not come into force until the local authority can cope with all the duties the Bill puts upon it. But it is very odd that we should have it laid down so clearly here that henceforth a probation officer who has had dealings with a family may now not do so again except in exceptional circumstances. It would be very useful to be able to turn to a probation officer who has knowledge and experience.

The Minister said in Committee: The formula that is devised in subsection (2) of this Clause is intended as a clear recognition of the overall responsibility of the children's service for work with children under 14."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 24th April, 1969; c. 352.] 12.45 a.m.

This is the crunch point, about which we are arguing continuously. There are hon. Members on this side of the House and also hon. Members opposite who are very worried that the onus of the problem in relation to these children is being taken away from the probation officer, even probation officers with experience of the family, and placed in the hands of a completely fresh person.

When the Seebohm Report is implemented it will undoubtedly be true that problems of this sort will be shuffled around in an even greater number of hands in the Department. This again is a matter for worry. One person, the probation officer, has had knowledge and experience of the family, and yet now it is suggested that the family should be dealt with by someone else. The notion accepts nothing of the bond of trust and respect that the probation officer has probably built up with the family, particularly when, probably, he has ceased to have dealings with the family.

I find it odd that the Bill says grudgingly that where a probation officer is already exercising his duties in relation to another member of the household he may be considered to be capable of taking over the duties for the child or young person whom we are discussing. If he has finished having dealings with another member of the family, he has probably reached a successful conclusion in that family. It is odd that if he has brought a matter to a successful conclusion it is thought that he is not a suitable person to have more dealings with the family.

The Home Secretary has taken a most extraordinary standpoint. I have a very great respect for the probation service and am very anxious that in future when the Bill is working we shall not lose the services of these people who have service of inestimable value to give, even more so when they have had close connection with a family.

Mr. Callaghan

I read the Amendment when it was tabled and have listened to the hon. Lady. It seems to me to be a sensible Amendment, and I am ready to accept it.

Having said that, let me say how much I deplore the emotional and exaggerated language used about probation officers in many of these discussions. The question is what rôle they should play in the interests of children. That is the purpose of considering the probation officer and his place in the scheme of things. As I have shown on a number of occasions during the Bill, I am ready to give him the place that seems required in the interests of the child.

I agree with the hon. Lady that if there is a probation officer who has in the past exercised his responsibilities in relation to another member of the household it is absolutely sensible to give him the opportunity once again of continuing his detailed knowledge.

There is no occasion because that is not in the Bill for all this hyperbole which is built up or seems to be building up in the Opposition in which the Government are supposed to be anti-probation officer and the Opposition are pro-probation officer. Nothing is further from the truth. To repeat what I have said before—the hon. Lady took something out of context—I am interested in the children's officers and in the probation officers from the point of view of what is best for the child. In this case it seems clear that the probation officer can exercise a useful rôle. I am very happy to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Worsley

I would just say to the right hon. Gentleman that if there is heat engendered and if there are strong feelings about this he has only himself to blame, because he in his Bill has deliberately restricted—I have already indicated the way he has done it and do not wish to repeat it—the rôle of the probation officers. However, I will not follow the rather churlish manner in which he has accepted the Amendment, because I am grateful that he has done so.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has made an extremely strong point. A probation officer often gets, over many years, a relationship with a family which is of the greatest value, and it would be sad if the Bill had been allowed to go through in a form which had indicated that there could be even a short break in that relationship, perhaps as a result of the very success of the probation officer. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of the Amendment, even if his way of doing so was rather churlish.

Mrs. Knight

I add my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite prepared to accept a gift horse and I will not look in any churlish mouth.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to