CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 29 July 1963)

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)
My Lords, in rising to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered, I feel that it might be convenient to your Lordships if I were to say a few words about the Bill as it now stands. When this Bill left us in February we congratulated ourselves on the improvements which had been made to it during its passage through your Lordships' House. Although it is perhaps rather annoying to have to admit it, I think that your Lordships will agree that since then it has been still further improved and embellished in another place. There may well be Members of your Lordships' House who might have liked to see still more substantial Amendments made to the Bill in another place; for example, on the major issue of the age of criminal responsibility, where the compromise decision which your Lordships took at our Report stage raising the age from 8 to 10 years has been left undisturbed. However, I can assure your Lordships that such Amendments as have been made to the Bill in another place are on the whole quite free from controversy. I am, in any event, prepared to commend all of them with confidence to your Lordships this afternoon.
The number of Amendments, 74 in all, may be a little daunting, but I hope I may be allowed to break them down into four broad categories and, when I have done so, I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that they are in substance less formidable than they may appear to be in numbers. The first category is a small but highly important group of Amendments designed to extend Clause 1 of the Bill to Scotland. These are Amendment Nos. 56, 57, 67 and 68, and No. 57 of these is the substantive Amendment. The only reason why this clause, which I think, by common consent, is the most important in the Bill, did not originally apply North of the Border was that when this Bill was tabled in your Lordships' House the question of preventive work for the welfare of children was being considered by 990 a Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care. Their Report was published in March. It is both clear and trenchant, as one might expect from a Committee of a Council whose chairman is my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. In their Report, the Committee recommended that local authorities in Scotland should be given a new duty to make arrangements for the prevention of neglect of children in their own homes so that those children need not be received into care. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland decided, with the agreement of all the Scottish local authority associations, to give effect to this recommendation and that is why Clause l now covers Scotland. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this.
The next group of Amendments are some ten which meet points raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill through this House. I think, if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree, it might be useful if I were to summarise and explain these Amendments briefly at this stage. The first is Amendment No. 2. This brings quite expressly within the scope of Clause 1 children who are at risk of coming before a juvenile court as offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will doubtless remember that when we discussed this matter at Report, on an Amendment which he had moved, I said that there would be consultations with the local authority associations and the London County Council as to whether local authorities really needed further powers to nip delinquency in the bud outside the scope of their existing services and powers. On that assurance, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. We have, as promised, consulted the representatives of the local authorities, and they have confirmed that they would prefer to see subsection (1) of Clause 1 widened to include a power to diminish the need for children to be brought before a juvenile court as offenders. It was following these discussions that the Government accepted an Amendment to this effect moved in another place.
Then there is Amendment No. 14. This ensures that a local authority have power to make payments for the welfare of a person whom they are befriending under Clause 15. This again was a matter which we discussed at our Report stage on an 991 Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It was also a matter about which, if I recall correctly, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was concerned. I undertook to consider whether subsection (2) of Clause 15 should expressly empower a local authority to make payments of this sort. Again, there were discussions with the local authority associations, and in the light of those discussions the Government decided to accept this Amendment when it was moved in another place.
Next we come, in discussing this group of Amendments designed to meet points raised by noble Lords, to Amendment No. 18. This is to Clause 27. As amended, this clause will not raise the age limit restricting the giving of oral evidence in sex cases as high as some noble Lords would, I think, have liked. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, proposed that we should raise this age to coincide with school-leaving age. He withdrew his Amendment to that effect on my assurance that we would look into this matter further. Having done so, we felt it would be better on the whole to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and raise the age to coincide with another existing age limit of more general application, the age of 14, which divides "children" from "young persons" for a number of purposes under the principal Act.
The next Amendment, No. 19, adds a new clause to the Bill. It has precisely the same purpose as one moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—namely, to enable local authorities to recover arrears of parental contributions through the courts. The noble Lord will remember that, while I was rather non-committal about the Amendment when he moved it at Report, I was not severely non-committal. Having adduced certain objections to it, I thought that the pros here might be stronger than the cons, although I felt that six months was too long and expressed the view that three months' retrospection might be the better period. This in fact is the period provided for in the Amendment.
Finally, Amendments 62 and 63 remove certain possible difficulties in the operation of paragraph 26 of Schedule 3, which the same noble Lord touched on during 992 our proceedings. These affect, of course, the after-care which local authorities can provide. I think that these Amendments fully cover the point which the noble Lord was anxious about. On the Third Reading of the Bill in this House, the noble Lord and I between us compiled a list of eight points that were left outstanding. He will be glad to know that the Amendments I have mentioned dispose of 5 of those 8 points. As to the other 3, we have not found it possible to improve on the terms of Clause 25. That covers the requirements for one or both parents to attend a juvenile court.
I am also sorry that we have not been able to meet the points about child actors and child models raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and Lord Stonham on Part II of the Bill, although I think the group of Amendments beginning with Amendment No. 21 goes at least some way to meet the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, on the points affecting young actors and actresses, about which he was kind enough to speak to me.

§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH
My Lords, I quite agree.

EARL JELLICOE
Again, on the third point, about the revocation of fit person orders under Clause 7, we have not felt able to depart from the present terms of the Bill. But perhaps I may set off against these three points on which I have not been able to give noble Lords satisfaction two others on which they have received an uncovenanted benefit. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 3 and Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, you will see that they relate to points which were discussed in this House and on which I did not then feel able to give any promise of further consideration. However, your Lordships will note that my right honourable friend—as always more flexible than his subordinate here—has in fact felt able to concede both points in another place. It is perhaps only necessary for me to refer as an example to Amendment No. 3. Your Lordships will recall that this provides for reports from local authorities to my right honourable friend on the operation of Clause 1 at not less than twelve-monthly intervals, a matter to which noble Lords opposite attached much importance when the Bill was with us earlier.
This brings me to the largest group of Amendments, some 46 all told, which 993 give effect to suggestions that occurred to us during the passage of the Bill through another place, or were put forward by Members there on one side or the other, or came to us from interested bodies outside Parliament. I shall be glad to try to explain in detail the merits of any of these Amendments if any of your Lordships wishes. At this stage, perhaps, it is necessary for me to refer only to Amendment No. 55. This will enable my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce new financial arrangements for remand homes should these prove necessary. A good deal of concern was expressed by your Lordships, as well as in another place, about the shortage of accommodation in remand homes. It is our view that the action now being taken by local authorities to increase the number of places available can go forward within the framework of the present financial arrangements, which local authorities on the whole prefer.
However, we think it right now to take power to establish a different system analogous to that for approved schools, in case it turns out that the present arrangements present an obstacle to further expansion. The Amendment would therefore empower my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce by regulations arrangements whereby the total expenditure of local authorities on remand homes would be shared among local authorities in proportion to the use made by each of them of remand home accommodation. That is, of course, similar to the arrangements now obtaining as far as approved schools are concerned.
That, my Lords, leaves us with the fourth group of Amendments which comprises 14 Amendments dealing entirely with matters of drafting or of privilege. I understand that noble Lords opposite would like to have the opportunity of discussing these 74 Amendments in four separate groups, although not quite the same groups as those I have mentioned. I understand the first group comprises Amendments Nos. 1 to 18, the second, Nos. 19 to 20, the third, Nos. 21 to 45, and lastly, Nos. 46 to 74.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said and his 994 most helpful explanation, that division may not prove to be necessary. I have not have an opportunity to consult my noble friends, but I am sure they do not wish the discussions on this Bill to take any longer than is necessary. Perhaps we might see how we go.

EARL JELLICOE
I am glad to fall in with any arrangement noble Lords opposite would prefer. Perhaps the simplest thing might be for me to move all these Amendments en bloc, and if noble Lords wish to ask questions about any specific Amendment I will do my best to give them satisfaction, although I cannot promise to do so. I beg to move.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I would again thank the noble Earl for his helpful explanation of these Amendments. He is quite wrong in thinking that we should be annoyed to note the many further improvements, and I can assure him that there is not a single one of these Amendments he has now moved which we find in any way annoying. In particular, we welcome the Amendments which have now been made in another place arising from suggestions which were originally made by my noble friends, some of which the noble Earl gave assurances about, but as to others he was unable to do so. As he has explained, second thoughts have proved better.
Apart from welcoming those improvements, we particularly welcome the reduction to 21 days of the maximum period within which a child must be brought before a juvenile court. This is a welcome improvement, although 21 days may subsequently be found too long, particularly when we have more accommodation. The noble Earl did not mention Amendment No. 5, which is a new version of Section 65 of the 1933 Act and which we also think will be most helpful, as also are the Amendments, to which he did refer, providing that if a child is kept up to 28 days without going to an approved school, then the court must renew the order or cancel it. We also welcome the fact that local authorities can make payments to children while they are in approved schools; that two different 995 Amendments enlarge the field of such children whom they can befriend, help and visit, and the fact that the new arrangements between local authorities are likely to be of great help in connection with the provision of more badly needed remand homes.
I think we were able in your Lordships' House to effect considerable improvements in the Bill, and there can be no question that further valuable improvements have been made in another place. I feel that this Bill when it becomes an Act, will be a great help in preventing refractory children from becoming delinquent, and delinquent children from becoming criminals. Fully and properly used, I feel that the Bill will mean that many children who would otherwise be most unhappy and most unuseful will become happy and useful citizens and, as such, it is a very good job of work.