ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED (Hansard, 25 October 1984)

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182.

§ Mr. Shaw
Clause 54 requires the police to inform the parents or guardian of a juvenile in police detention of his arrest and whereabouts. That duty already exists at present by virtue of section 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Clause 54 was intended to update that section. Unfortunately, however, we realised while the Bill was in another place that it did rather more than that. Whereas the 1933 Act obliges the police to take such steps as may be practicable to convey the necessary information, clause 54 as printed imposes an absolute duty. But of course there may be cases where the duty cannot be carried out because the whereabouts of parents are simply not known. Amendments Nos. 179, 180 and 181 accordingly set out what the police practicably can and must do after arresting a juvenile.
Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation having parental rights and responsibilities for him.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
I am very concerned abut the earlier part of this set of amendments. In broad terms what is suggested is acceptable and good, sound common sense, but there have been many cases in which the police have said from time to time in evidence, "We would have told the parents," or "We would have told the guardian or foster parents,"—such cases often arise—"if it had been practicable to do so, but we telephoned their home and they were out." Alternatively, the police might say, "We sent a bobby round to their house, but they were out." Where a child or a young person is taken into custody and often, nowadays, regrettably, charged with an extremely serious offence, it is desirable that the police should take more than merely cursory steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the person responsible for the welfare of the child or young person. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the Government will issue guidelines and, if so, what guidelines will be issued to ensure that that happens.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be brief.

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There are important distinctions between having a juvenile and having those of more mature years in custody. All that I can do is to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the police are to take this duty seriously and that in the case of a juvenile they must take as many practicable steps as possible to inform the next of kin, parent, guardian or person who has responsibility. That is what the amendment is designed to do. There will be guidance on this matter in due course. I must also tell the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably concede, that the police try extremely hard, when they have young 887 persons in custody, to find the parents. It is astonishing sometimes how lax parents are about knowing the whereabouts of their children.
Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation. In such a case it is clearly desirable that the police should have to give the organisation the information required by the clause. The amendment ensures that they will.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I am glad to support these amendments.
Often children who come into the custody of the police are terrified of their parents. In some cases children will lie when the police ask them where they belong because they are frightened. Sometimes there is child abuse and child beating. I can only say from personal experience that, although I do not wish to generalise because all generalisations are untrue, there is a remarkable amount of kindness in police stations towards young people—terrified children, children who are wet, cold and hungry. Sometimes even when the social workers are on strike the police station is the last recourse, and the police take the children in. They do not have many facilities, but in wide areas of the police force there is such kindness to children, which should be put on record.
Of course, it is right that the police should get in touch with the parents as soon as possible if they can, but amendment No. 181 is right to insert the words as soon as it is reasonably practicable". For my part, I am confident that the police service will do that in the overwhelming majority of cases.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend about amendment No. 182, which concerns cases when the child or young person is in the care of a voluntary organisation. Manifestly, the same duty must lie upon the police in such cases. One of the problems is that such organisations frequently do not have a night number. For one reason or another, there may be no one on duty or available. I hope that in any guidance or advice by circular to chief officers the Home Office will take account of the fact that not every voluntary organisation which has custody of children is necessarily easy to contact late at night.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
The purpose of the amendment is clearly highly desirable. It is also clear, however, that there is no inherent sanction. I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that in some areas some officers may not be so assiduous as others in carrying out this duty. As there are no sanctions attaching to this statutory obligation, it is important that police forces should lay down very careful guidelines as to the steps that officers should take in given circumstances. I am sure that the House will welcome any observations that the Minister can make on that.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
The points raised in all three interventions relate to the same matter. I accept that if juveniles are held in custody, the duty on the police to inform those responsible for them must be taken very seriously indeed, and that is how it will be.