§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
§ Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Amendment of Section 64 of principal Act
§ 5.—(1) Where the parent or guardian of a child or young person proves to a juvenile court that he is unable to control that child or young person, any order of the court under section sixty-four of the principal Act that the child or young person be sent to an approved school shall not require the agreement of the local authority within whose area the child or young person is resident, and accordingly the proviso to the said section sixty-four is hereby repealed.
§ (2) Before dealing with an application under the said section sixty-four, the court shall cause to be sent—
- (a) to the probation officer, or one of the probation officers, for the probation area in which the court sits; and
- (b) to the local authority for the district in which the child or young person is resident,
§ LORD KENNET moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment with which many local 1050 authorities who take a deep interest in the welfare of the unruly or difficult child are concerned. It calls, I think, for just a few words of exposition. Under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, a parent or guardian can bring a child before the juvenile court as being out of control, and can ask for an order that the child be sent to an approved school or put under a probation officer or some other fit person. A juvenile court can make that order if the parent assents. Under the existing law, which dates from 1908—this is not a new provision—an order committing the child to an approved school, which of course is the most severe form of order, as it removes the child entirely from the charge of its parents, is also subject to the assent of the local authority. The importance of that, from the point of view of the welfare of the child, is that all parents are not patient or judicious; and some parents might apply for an order for reference of a child to an approved school in a manner which might well be criticised by somebody who knew the circumstances of the family. Such a person, of course, would be the welfare officer of the local authority.
§ This power has been exercised, as the local authorities believe, with great advantage to the decision of difficult cases, by the local authority refusing its assent to an order until a further opportunity has been given the parent and the juvenile court to consider the case after, as it were, hearing the case for the child against the severity of an order committing him to an approved school. Local authorities feel strongly oh this matter and have expressed their great regret that they should be deprived by this subsection of this power of intervening in these cases, because they believe that their power has been exercised very much to the advantage of a just decision. I venture to ask the promoters of the Bill and Her Majesty's Government to give further consideration to this matter and to ascertain whether, possibly after further inquiries and the consideration of alternative measures, by omitting this subsection from the Bill, an opportunity may be given for preserving this valuable potentiality on behalf of the local authorities. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection —(Lord Kennet.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI have communicated with the Home Office for the purpose of being the better informed about this rather technical matter and, of course, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Kennet has just said. I need not say that any further consideration which he feels might properly be given to the matter shall be given; but as for the moment I am acting as the promoter of the Bill, following the advice of the Home Department I cannot accept his Amendment. Allow me to point out briefly why. My noble friend said just now that the effect of the subsection was to deprive the local authorities of power to intervene in these cases. That is really not so. What the clause does is to remove the absolute power of the local authority to veto the sending of a child to an approved school. At the same time, in subsection (2) it provides that, before a juvenile court can deal with an application under this clause, the court must send the local authority for the district in which the young person is resident a notification of the application and of the date when it is going to be considered. The object of that requirement is to make sure that the local authority will put all its views and information before the juvenile court. Therefore, it is not the case that the local authority is being deprived of any power of intervention; but it is being deprived of the power of veto.
This power might have been a perfectly proper one for the local authority to exercise in times past, when juvenile courts were just beginning; and in some cases there was a financial reason why they might be disposed to do so, because in the old days the local authority would escape the burden which might follow from an order of the juvenile court. But since 1948, by Act of Parliament, the juvenile court has had power to place a child brought before the court under the care of the local authority, without the leave of the local authority at all; and as soon as the child is placed under the care of the local authority the financial burdens, whatever they may be, will follow. Therefore, I venture to think that, although the noble Lord's argument sounds attractive, it is really addressed to a past situation which no longer exists. The real question is: who is to be the body which is mainly responsible for deciding what is to be done in the case 1052 of a child who is beyond control and who has to be dealt with? I think experience has shown that the juvenile court is the body which ought to exercise that responsibility. But, of course, the juvenile court ought not to do it in a way which is opposed by the local authority, unless the local authority has the opportunity of pointing out the considerations which make them doubt whether such an order would be justified.
That, in brief, is the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment. It is the juvenile court, and not the local authority which is now constituted as the authority to decide on the treatment of the juvenile There is now no financial question involved, because the burden on the local authority, whatever it is, will fall on them one way or the other. From the advice which I have received from the Home Office—and I think it is right—it appears to me that this is a useful and convenient change in the law, and not at all a serious one. It is not one that tells the local authority that it must no longer intervene but one which says that the local authority no longer has a power of veto but can present to the court whatever considerations it feels should be born, in mind before the fate of the child is decided. I venture, most respectfully, to say to my noble friend that I cannot accept his Amendment as one which is intervening in the interests of the child The juvenile court are doing nothing except to decide things as best they can in the interests of the child, and it is right that the local authority should con tribute its own information and views which will be the effect of Clause 5 in it remains as it is at present. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that I have considered this Amendment carefully, and not without a desire to understand the arguments put forward. I he sees fit to communicate with me at a later stage, I will certainly obtain from the Home Office any further information and advice that seems desirable, but I am afraid that I cannot now accept the Amendment.
§ LORD KENNETI am obliged to my noble and learned friend for his offer o communication upon this subject. It may be some reassurance to the local authorities that there will be no discontinuation or cessation of the opportunity offered 1053 to them of intervening and of being heard. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) to leave out all words from the beginning of the paragraph down to "in" and to insert:
(a) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division.
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the next, although having a rasher elaborate appearance, are purely drafting Amendments, for the purpose of bringing the language of the clause strictly into line with that which has been used in the earlier Acts. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 19, and insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI beg to move the next. Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
(3) The said section thirty-five shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) thereof to the probation officer, or one of the probation officers, for the probation area in which the court or justices will sit there were substituted a reference to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division in which the court or justices will sit.
(4) For the purposes of this section and of the proviso to subsection (2) of the said section thirty-five, the expression 'petty sessional division' means—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
§ 2.55 p.m.
§
LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
. Section thirty-five of the principal Act shall be amended as follows:—
'(3) Investigations as to the home surroundings of the child or young person shall in all cases be made by a probation officer who shall present the report of such investigation to the court at such time as the court may direct.
§ The noble Lord said: Section 35 of the Act of 1933 lays down that when a child or young person is to be brought before the court, either to answer a criminal charge or as being in need of care or protection, two parties shall be informed before the trial takes place: first, the probation officer, and secondly, the local authority. The section goes on to lay down that in the case of the local authority it shall be mandatory that that authority shall furnish to the court a report of four things: the home surroundings, the school record, the health, and the character of the child. It further lays down that in respect of one of those four things—namely, the home surroundings—a different arrangement may be made by the justices, who may make an order that, instead of the local authority furnishing the report on the home surroundings, it may be done by the probation officer.
§ That proviso making it optional whether the report on the home surroundings is made by the probation officer or by the local authority was put into the Act, I suggest, because in the year 1933 there were not full-time probation officers all over the country; and if the Act had made it mandatory on the probation service to present these reports the duty could not have been carried out, because there simply were not the officers to do it. Times have changed since 1933, and now it can be said that the whole country is covered by a system of full-t tine probation officers. Therefore, I suggest that it would be an improvement if that which was optional in 1933 were made mandatory in 1953, and that in future the report in respect of the home surroundings (your Lordships will note that this Amendment deals only with home surroundings) should in all cases be furnished, not by the local authority, but by the probation officer. That is really the gist of this Amendment.
§ I should like to say a few words in support of that contention. It is most undesirable that a multiplicity of inquiries 1055 should be sought from the homes of children before trial. Some inquiries are inevitable and necessary, but there is a good deal of evidence that parents have been very much embarrassed, and even distressed, by so many inquiries having to be made—by the local authority, by the probation service, by the police, and possibly by others. Therefore, the suggestion I make is that, while the local authority should continue to make the reports on the other three subjects—namely, school record, health and character (they are best fitted to do that)—the report on the home surroundings should be exclusively that of the probation officer, because for that, unlike the other three, it is necessary for a visit to be paid to the home. If this Amendment were carried, I believe that the Bill would be improved to that extent. There would be a clear distinction between the duties of these two different authorities. All the Amendment does is to make universal what could have been done before by the order of the justices. That discretion of the justices has not been universally applied—I expect there are some justices who do not even know of it. I feel sure that the Bill could be improved on those lines if this Amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI have considered carefully the suggestion which my noble friend makes in this Amendment, and I have consulted the Home Office about it. The noble Lord is quite right when he indicates that in the majority of cases these investigations as to home surroundings are made by probation officers. But he feels that the law would be improved if we were now to change the Bill and make it a requirement that inquiries as to home surroundings should always be made by the probation officer, and that local authorities should be relieved of this branch of duty in all cases. It would have the effect of making things very tidy, but I am told—and I should myself judge—that it is unwise to lay down so absolute a rule as that. I doubt very much whether, if the local authority were relieved of inquiring into home surroundings in all cases, it would thereby reduce the number of visits to the home, because the section itself says that the local authority 1056 shall provide the court with information not only as to home surroundings but also as to the school record, health, and character of the child. I can imagine a case where, in order to ascertain either the health or the character of the child, it would be natural and desirable to make an inquiry at the home where the child is living. I agree entirely that the multiplicity of official callers is to be discouraged; we ought, so far as possible, to canalise this service and get the appropriate person to do it on behalf of all concerned.
The experience of the Home Office is that there are cases in which it is better to leave the local authorities to make the inquiries, and, indeed, I strongly suspect that there may be local authorities who would object if we legislated that they should not be allowed to do it. From that point of view, this Amendment is in slight contrast to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennet, who wanted to increase the powers of the local authorities; this is one which would reduce their powers and duties. I believe that it will be found that it is better to leave the court with an option. The juvenile court now has an option with regard to inquiries into home surroundings—whether they shall be made by the local authority or by the probation officer—and it really is a question, as I am assured, of what is the best thing to do in each locality. By this time the decision about that can surely be left as a matter of discretion in the hands of the justices. As I have said, in most cases probation officers do make the inquiries. There are some where the arrangement is that the local authority staff do it; and the justices are grateful to them for doing so, and find that they do it very well. There is no reason for bringing these arrangements to an end when they work well, or to lay down a fixed rule that in all cases it shall be done in one way and that in no case is it to be done in another way. I hope that my noble friend will recognise this, when he looks into the point closely. If he desires to bring any further particulars about it to the attention of those concerned with the Bill, or to the Home Office itself, I know that they will be only too glad to hear from him. I hope that at this stage the House will agree that we should not make this Amendment.
LORD MERTHYRI should like to say that the argument which the noble and learned Viscount used against the Amendment, in which he said that the local authority ought to be able to inquire into the health and character of the child, is surely an argument against, amongst other things, the proviso which is already in the original Act. If that be a weighty and sound argument, then I suggest that it is an argument against the law as it now stands. I should also like to make this observation. As I understand it, there is nothing in this Amendment which would prevent the local authority from making these inquiries. The noble Viscount said that they ought to be allowed to do it, and I agree. What I am suggesting is that they ought not to be made to do it.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMay I interpose to observe that my noble friend's Amendment includes these words:
Investigations as to the home surroundings of the child or young person shall in all cases be made by a probation officer….Surely he is not suggesting that the local authority should do it as well?
LORD MERTHYRThere is nothing to say that they may not do it as well. If they want to go to the home to investigate the health and character of the child, then they can do it as well if this Amendment is passed. Finally, the noble Viscount suggested that the present system was working well. It is just because I have at least some evidence to show that it is not working well that I have produced this Amendment. The evidence I have is that it is causing irritation and distress in some homes, as I have said before, that so many different investigations have to be made by so many different officers. It is for that very reason that I am moving this Amendment. However, the noble Viscount says that he cannot at present accept it. I certainly do not wish to divide the House, but in seeking to withdraw this Amendment I should like to take advantage of his offer of further 1058 discussion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule [Consequential amendments of enactments]:
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI beg to move the next Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
("3. In section thirty-five—
(3) In this section, the expression 'petty sessional division' means—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 35 and insert—
("(a) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division"). —(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONThis is a further consequential Amendment. I beg, to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert—
("In this subsection, the expression 'petty sessional division' has the same meaning as in section thirty-five of this Act").—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.