§ Welfare powers of local authorities
§ Extension of power to promote welfare of children
§ 1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to make arrangements for such advice, guidance and assistance to be available, as far as practicable, as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act 1948 or the principal Act or to bring children before a juvenile court as being in need of care or control; and any such arrangements may, if the local authority think fit, include arrangements for giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash.
§
EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "arrangements for", where those words first occur, and to insert "available". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with a number of other Amendments: Amendments No. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords will agree that it might be convenient to discuss this covey of Amendments together. If this Amendment and Amendments No. 6 and 7 were accepted, subsection (1) of the amended clause would read as follows—perhaps I could read it as it may not be easy to follow from the Amendments as they appear on the Marshalled List:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to make available such advice, guidance and assistance or may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act, 1948 or the principal Act or to bring children before a juvenile court as being in need of care or control; and any
156
provisions made by a local authority under this subsection may, if the local authority think fit, include provision for giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash.
Amendment No. 8 would thereafter provide for a new subsection (2) authorising the local authority to make arrangements for voluntary organisations or other persons for the provision of the service mentioned in the first subsection. The local authority considered that that was desirable. Amendment No. 9 is, for its part, a purely consequential Amendment making a consequential change in the wording of the present subsection (3). Taken together, these Amendments are designed to meet the wish which was expressed by noble Lords opposite in Committee, that Clause 1 should be so drafted as to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, put it,
that responsibility for positive action rested upon the local authority itself.
§ If the new subsection (1) is accepted the local authority will in fact be given a direct and specific duty "to make available such advice ",et cetera. At the same time we all, I think, agree that the various voluntary organisations have a real part to play here. As we all recognise, a number of voluntary organisations are already doing splendid work up and down the country in helping children—and preventing the need for them to come into care—through bolstering their families in various ways. At Committee none of us wanted to do anything to handicap this voluntary work and we all agreed that local authorities should therefore have discretion to seek the help of these agencies for particular purposes. This is provided for in the new subsection (2) to be found in Amendment No. 8. Nevertheless, the new subsection (1), which I read out, will make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the primary responsibility rests clearly and squarely with the local authority.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting for a moment? Is he discussing Amendment No. 5 together with the others? If so, and if it is accepted, it has an effect on Amendment No. 3 and 4, which I am hoping to move.
EARL JELLICOENo, I am not discussing Amendment No. 5. I trust that noble Lords opposite—in particular the 157 noble Lords, Lord Latham, Lord Burden and Lord Shepherd—will feel the new wording meets their point, as it is certainly designed to do. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, will have noticed that we have not adopted his wording, which would have laid on the local authority an explicit duty "to provide such advice". Having thought over the matter again, we have preferred the words "make available" in order to ensure that the local authority is not placed under an obligation to advise or guide those who are unwilling to accept advice or guidance. We want these services to be made available, but at the same time we do not want them to be thrust down the throats of unwilling recipients.
There are two other related matters here to which I should like very briefly to refer. The first concerns grants by local authorities to, voluntary organisations. I have been made aware that some voluntary organisations are worried that Clause 1 may in some way impair the ability of local authorities to make grants available to them for work designed to promote the welfare of children. Their present power is derived from Section 46 (2) of the 1948 Act and is, I am advised, quite unimpaired by Clause 1, amended or unamended. Indeed, the effect of Clause 1 will be to extend the range of voluntary organisations to which local authorities may make contributions for this sort of work.
The second point is this: that noble Lords opposite may have noticed that in redrafting the clause we have taken the chance of dropping the words "so far as practicable". I argued as vigorously as I could in favour of these words on our Committee Stage, and I do not remember giving an undertaking to reconsider this point. But, on reflection, we have come to the conclusion that their omission is as harmless as we still think that their inclusion would have been. My Lords, I think that we are all agreed that Clause 1 is an important part of this Bill, and I have confidence that I can commend it in its new guise to your Lordships.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("arrangements for") and insert ("available").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are some concession to the Amendments moved by me in the Committee stage. It is a modest concession. I still take the view that the word "provide" is better, in that it puts a definitive obligation on local authorities to provide the facilities which are enumerated in the clause. It is encouraging to note that the words "so far as practicable" have gone. I felt that the noble Earl did not argue in their support with any visible conviction, and that would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the words have gone. In the result it may well be that the noble Earl has gone as far as he can. He has not gone as far as we would wish him to go.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICHMy Lords, in supporting these Amendments, I should like to say how very much I welcome the increased responsibility and powers which this Bill gives to local authorities in regard to preventive action for children, and also, through one of these Amendments, the way in which local authorities may enable voluntary bodies to exercise this responsibility. The voluntary help that has hitherto been called upon by the staff of children's departments to meet the needs of their work was not merely emergency action in default of statutory provision in regard to money or time, but called into the service of children and families people without whose help the preventive work could not properly be done. It is necessary not only to be able to call on the help of sisters, cousins and aunts, not fogetting grannies, but to provide for informal and continuous assistance to be given by voluntary workers prepared to work in close association with the statutory officer. I very much welcome the fact that provision for voluntary work is to be continued under the new powers and responsibilities placed on the local authorities.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his welcome to this clause as amended, and I would also, if I may, thank the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for his mitigated welcome to the clause as amended.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
159
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("assistance") to third ("as") in line 10.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.15 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "as being in need of care or control". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, and I hope that it will be to your Lordships' convenience if I discuss with it Amendment No. 4. I, too, welcome the two Amendments which your Lordships have just accepted. I think they very considerably improve the clause, and I congratulate the noble Earl upon getting rid of the words "as far as practicable", which, if I recall aright were necessary because in other circumstances we have a ministerial sieve, and they were to serve in lieu of that sieve. In these circumstances I think that the sieve is quite redundant, and that he is quite right to get rid of those words.
§
The noble Earl did us a service in reading out subsection (1) of the clause as it will stand if all these Amendments he has moved, and will move, are accepted. I should like to read the subsection as it would be if, apart from Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which we have just passed, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were accepted. It would read like this:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act 1948 or the principal Act or to bring children before a juvenile court under the principal Act…
Much as I admire the elegance of style in the noble Earl's reading, I venture to suggest that this further Amendment now brings this clause up to a stage of pristine elegance and clarity unexampled by any clause in any Bill that I have ever read. That alone, I should have thought, was enough to commend these Amendments and, indeed, the whole Bill.
§ There is a point of substance in these two Amendments because the major object of Clause 1 is to reduce the need to bring children before a court as being 160 in need of care or control, and Clause 2 sets out the conditions which must be satisfied before a child can be considered to be in need of the care, control or assistance which a local authority is required to give. So that the retention, if they are retained, in Clause 1 of the words I propose to delete, namely "as being in need of care or control", narrows the field in Which the local authority can operate. In my submission, it narrows the field far too much. They can only effectively give advice, guidance and assistance if the child is in need of care, protection or control, which, by definition (and the definition is in Clause 2) means if the child has bad associates, is exposed to moral danger, or through lack of care is likely to be seriously affected in health, or has had one of certain offences committed against him. I agree that these are all very important and essential reasons for intervention by a local authority, but they are by no means all-embracing or, in my submission, sufficient for the purpose we all have in mind in this clause. For example, they would not in many cases give a local authority power to help a potential offender.
It may well be argued that the qualifying conditions I have read out will enable a local authority to help the potential offender in many cases, but by no means all. Surely such persons should not be denied the benefit of the new service. Preventive work of this kind is likely to be the most fruitful of all in reducing juvenile delinquency, and I do not think that the word "protection", which the noble Earl in the next Amendment proposes to insert, will cover all necessary cases. I think it will doubtless be many years before we have further legislation of this kind before us. In this Amendment I am asking the Government to give local authorities the opportunity—the power, if you like—to attempt to reduce juvenile delinquency by social work. I feel that it is a point of substance and importance. It is certainly an alteration which the biggest local authorities very much desire. I hope that this very considerable opportunity will not be missed, and that the Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("as being in need of care or control").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think I am right in recalling that at our Committee stage the noble Lord had Amendments down in similar terms which he was not able to move. I should like to say straight away that I am sorry, in a way, that he was not able to move them then, as our Committee procedure gives us a little more latitude for discussion, and also a little more length of time to consider these matters. I am sorry, because I am the first to agree that the Amendments which he has just moved are ones of substance and importance. Because I think they are of substance and importance, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I reply to this particular Amendment at some length.
As I understand it the primary purpose of these Amendments would be to extend the duties of a local authority under Clause 1 to include the provision of advice, guidance and assistance for the purpose of preventing children from being brought before a court otherwise than as in need of care or control—for example, when charged with an offence. I understood, again from what the noble Lord said, that his primary aim here is to give local authorities a fairly wide power to nip delinquency, or potential delinquency, in the bud by social casework. If that is so (and he confirms that it is) I should like to point out, very much in passing, that technically the second Amendment does not, I understand, really secure what the noble Lord may be after. That is because a child charged with an offence is not, I am advised, brought before a court under the principal Act, but rather under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and other particular Statutes relating to criminal proceedings. But that is merely a technical point.
During our Second Reading debate I referred to this grave and, unfortunately, growing problem of juvenile delinquency. Noble Lords may have noticed that only last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, speaking in Lancashire, described it as one of the most important problems, or the most important problem, with which he as Home Secretary was faced. In view of this fact I can say at once that I am not at all unsympathetic to the broad purpose behind these Amendments. And that, I think, makes it all the more important why I should 162 try to explain why I am not able to recommend their acceptance.
In the first place, it is clear that in a sense the prevention of the cause of delinquency already comes in part within the scope of Clause 1 of this Bill. The main function of a local authority under Clause 1 is to promote the welfare of children by social casework with their families designed to avert or remedy the consequences of parental inadequacy or family breakdown. The inadequacy of parents and the breakdown of families are undoubtedly factors which can and do contribute to the growth of delinquency, so that work with a family which reduces the risk of the children coming into care is also likely to reduce the risk of their going off the rails. It does, therefore, help the potential offender of whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke. Thus the kind of work which the clause already and without amendment requires local authorities to do is in itself one means of reducing or preventing delinquency.
But to go further than that, and to require local authorities (as these Amendments, as I read them, would) to make available advice, guidance and assistance, possibly quite outside the context of family casework, in order to diminish the need to charge children with offences, is a different matter. I am not quite clear, I must confess, precisely what advice, guidance and assistance the noble Lord thinks could and should be given under the clause as he would like to see it amended. He may be intending simply to lay on local authorities a general duty to reduce juvenile delinquency. But in that case I would suggest that Clause 1 is the wrong vehicle in which to import this obligation into the Bill. Not all delinquents are the children of neglectful or ineffectual parents; and not all measures to reduce delinquency consist in providing the kind of advice, guidance and assistance which we are all trying to provide for under Clause 1 of the Bill.
I have a further objection to our imposing a direct and general duty, such as this Amendment would do—at least as I read it—on local authorities to reduce delinquency. We fully recognise the gravity of this problem, but we also recognise that there is much about it which is obscure and mysterious. The 163 prevention of delinquency is not a matter like the prevention of infectious diseases. In the latter instance we are right to make certain that services known to be directly connected with health—for example, the provision of a good supply of pure water—are provided, and to ensure, by legislation if necessary, the uniform application of known and accepted precautions. But, given the present limits of our knowledge about delinquency, about as causes, and about its remedies, we feel that it would be wrong to lay a general obligation or duty of this sort, as I think the Amendment does, on local authorities.
That is not to say that local authorities cannot already take useful action in this matter under their existing powers. There is much, for example, which they can do in the sphere of education, of the youth services and of the welfare services. Much can be done under their existing powers to alert others, who may be able to tackle this quickly enough, to the fact that certain children may be at risk. Much can also be done by a local authority—perhaps more than some do at present—to improve the co-ordination of these various services. Nor, my Lords, am I claiming that the powers of local authorities—powers, not duties, I repeat—need not necessarily be extended in this sphere.
We believe that in tackling this problem we should experiment with a variety of measures, and combinations of measures, to see which appear to have an effect in a particular area or on a particular type of delinquency. We have not, however, yet reached the stage when particular remedies can be recommended for general adoption. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last week, in his speech at Preston, to which I have already referred, that he intended, in consultation with the local authority associations, to encourage local experiments in this field. Consultation with the local authority associations will also cover the question whether local authorities need further powers, to enable them to do work of this sort not within the scope of their existing services.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is he aware that I am not seeking to impose on local authorities this particular power for 164 which I am asking: it is one which they wish to impose on themselves—particularly in the case of the London County Council, for an experiment in the London area where there is a very great deal of delinquency. Perhaps he would bear that in mind.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I was aware of that. But, of course, eminent and large though that particular local authority is, there are others. But what I was about to say to the noble Lord was that I can assure him that we shall proceed rapidly with these discussions with the local authority associations; and that will, of course, embrace the London County Council. If we find that such extra powers to which I was referring are desirable, we shall seek to include them in this Bill when it is considered in another place. I can give him that assurance. In the light of that assurance, and having explained the difficulties I see in accepting the noble Lord's particular Amendment, though not being at all unsympathetic to the purpose behind it, I should like to ask him not to press these Amendments at this stage.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I regard that as a wholly satisfactory reply, but I am in one little difficulty. I am going to withdraw the Amendment, but my difficulty is that in a moment or two the noble Earl will be moving to include the word "protection" in the clause. In the event of something like that which I am proposing eventually being acceptable to the Government in another place, I take it that he or his right honourable friend would then also move to withdraw the word "protection", which he subsequently proposes to insert, because it would not then be necessary.
EARL JELLICOEIf I have the leave of the House to speak again, I think I can say straight away that if a consequential adjustment or readjustment were needed, one would, of course, be made.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 3.32 p.m.
§ EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (1), after "need of care" to insert "protection". The noble Earl 165 said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 14 cover the same point, and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if we were to take them together. Your Lordships will recall that during our Committee stage two alternative formulae were suggested to the new phrase "in need of care or control" which is used in Clause 2 of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, wished to replace it with the current phrase "in need of care or protection". My noble friend Lord Raglan and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, proposed a hybrid combination, "in need of care, protection or control". I think, too, that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood also had some liking for the hybrid.
§ In withdrawing her Amendment, the noble Baroness asked, me to look at this whole matter again and to look very particularly at the possibility of adopting the hybrid formula. We have in fact reconsidered this matter, and since the description "in need of care, protection or control" seems to command the widest measure of agreement, and since in fact it accurately describes what we are trying to do here, we have decided to recommend it to your Lordships' House. This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 14 make the necessary changes where reference to "care or control" occur in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("care") insert ("protection").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, I very much appreciate the hybrid formula which the noble Earl has now put forward, and I am particularly glad to see that the word "protection" has got back into it. The important point here is that Clause 2 should be regarded as a clause which is intended for the protection of children who are the victims of misfortune or neglect, and that Clause 2 should not be used as a way of getting round the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The word "protection" I think emphasises, very naturally, the protective function of the clause. I would remind your Lordships that the clause is drafted in extremely wide terms, and for that reason it is particularly necessary to be 166 clear as to its inherent intention. One of the conditions in which a child may be brought before a court under this clause is still, as was the case under the principal Act, that he is exposed to moral danger. My Lords, that is an extraordinarily wide-ranging phrase. I should have thought that it covered the entire child population, for all of us are surely exposed to moral danger by virtue of the mere fact of being born into this wicked world. Since we have a clause which is so widely drawn, it is important to make perfectly clear what its purpose is. With the introduction of the word "protection" we do, think, express that intention, and I hope we close the door to any attempt to use this part of the Bill in a way for which it is not and ought not to be designed.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("such arrangements") and insert ("provisions made by a local authority under this subsection").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("arrangements") and insert ("provision").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) In carrying out their duty under subsection (1) of this section a local authority may make arrangements with voluntary organisations or other persons for the provision by those organisations or other persons of such advice, guidance or assistance as is mentioned in that subsection.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("arrangements") and insert ("provisions").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
167
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("care") insert ("protection").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, after ("care") insert ("protection").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.