HC Deb 29 March 1973 vol 853 cc1518-20
16. Mr. Peter Archer

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for bringing into effect further sections of the Children and Young Persons Act 1968.

Mr. Carlisle

My right hon. Friend has none at present, but he has, by order, raised to 12 the age up to which some provisions already in force will operate. The effect of the order, which comes into operation on 1st April, is to transfer from the probation service to local authorities responsibility for the supervision of children aged 10 and 11, and for the provision of home surroundings reports on children of those ages.

Mr. Archer

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for that. However, does he agree that the presence of an implementation clause is to enable the Minister to defer the operation of a statute until the necessary arrangements have been made but not to delay it indefinitely because he disagrees with what Parliament said? Will the Minister explain how it comes about that although the non-implementation policy was announced publicly outside the House on 13th January, by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whenever I put down a Question to him about it the Question is transferred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Carlisle

That is because the implementation of the Act is a matter for the Home Office and not the Secretary of State for Social Services. The object of an implementation clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is to defer implementation. If, as happened in this case, one Parliament passes legislation but it falls to another Government to decide whether to implement it, they are entitled to decide which parts of the previous Parliament's legislation they will implement and which they will not.

Mr. Fry

Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many magistrates feel that some sections of the Act which are already in force are not satisfactory? Before we implement any more of the Act, should we not review those parts already in operation?

Mr. Carlisle

I think I am right in saying that it was in the summer of 1970 that, as the responsible Minister in the Home Office, I announced which parts of the Act we intended to implement and which parts we did not. That remains the case. There has been a certain amount of review of the question of orders being made which put people into the care of local authorities.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

Does the Minister recognise that his answer is unsatisfactory? If a Government feel that Parliament has changed its mind they should repeal an Act rather than refuse to implement it. Has any pressure been brought to bear on local authorities to provide accommodation that would make the implementation of this Act possible? May I draw to the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the fact that without this Act being in operation we have had, in a recent case, extremely severe sentences being passed on young people? Is he aware that many of us feel that if the Act had been in operation those people would have been handled in a more humane and enlightened manner?

Mr. Carlisle

I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks. The fact remains that the Act was passed by the previous Government. In Opposition we made our view clear, and it fell to this Government to decide which parts of the Act to implement. We implemented those parts which we believed it right to implement, and we have made it clear that at this stage we do not propose to implement those parts with which we disagree.

Mr. Archer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.