HL Deb 23 April 1968 vol 291 cc498-548

4.7 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

Clause 26:

Supervision and care of persons put on probation or released from prisons etc.

26.—

(3) A probation scheme shall make provision with regard to the following matters— (c) arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with the courts, and such arrangements may include the appointment of one or more sheriffs having jurisdiction in their areas to the social work committee and to any sub-committee thereof

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with permission I would seek to move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together. The purpose of these Amendments is to give consistency to Clauses 12, 25 and 26. Your Lordships will recollect that at the last stage similar Amendments were moved to Clause 25. Because of the way we decided to proceed in relation to Clause 26, no Amendments on this point were then moved to that clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 27, leave out ("care and").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 28, after ("guidance") insert ("and assistance").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 15 I would also direct your Lordships' attention to No. 25. As subsection (1)(b)(i) of this clause stands, it is doubtful whether it covers persons moving to Scotland who are subject to the supervision of a court in England and Wales. The aim of the Amendment, which would generalise the provisions relating to persons subject to probation and fines supervision orders, is to ensure that such persons are covered. Amendment No. 25, which removes subsection (8), is a necessary consequence of Amendment 15. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 29, leave out from ("under") to (",and") in line 32 and insert ("supervision by order of a court made in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved, in subsection (1)(b)(i), to leave out "and". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in effect consequential on Amendment No. 18, and I suggest it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak to No. 18 at this stage. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 26 requires local authorities to provide first for the supervision of people on probation or under some similar order, and, secondly, for the supervision of people released from confinement who are required to be under supervision; that is to say, it refers to compulsory or statutory after-care. The purpose of these two Amendments is to add to the duties of the local authority that of providing voluntary after-care to any discharged prisoner who wants it. In England and Wales the probation and after-care service already has the duty of providing voluntary after-care. I realise that this is not so in Scotland at present, but clearly it seems to be a desirable extension of the functions of the Scottish service, and provision should be made for it in this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 32, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. It seems desirable that provision should be made in the Bill for the voluntary supervision of persons who are discharged from prison if they are willing to seek help, should it be available. Those of us who have had some connection with, and have some knowledge of, what is happening in England and Wales at the present moment, realise that a tremendous amount of work is possible among those who submit themselves to the voluntary after-care of a probation officer and of a probation service after leaving prison.

We are naturally concerned, and always have been, that people who go to prison should not, if it can be avoided, find their way there a second, third or fourth time. While it is desirable that the provisions set out in Clause 26 should exist, I think it is equally important and desirable that there should be provision in the Bill for the voluntary supervision of persons leaving prison who feel that they need help at that particular time. I am not suggesting that this kind of help should be available indefinitely. Perhaps it should be limited to some months after they come out of prison. This is the time when they need the advice and help and guidance and care that the community can give them through the probation service.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am right in assuming that if this Amendment were not made, the assistance that it seeks to give would still be available under Clause 12, where there is a duty on every local authority to make available advice, guidance and assistance to anybody who wants it? Nevertheless, I suggest to the noble Lord that this would be a proper part of a probation scheme, and this is really what we are talking about here. For this reason I support the Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the intervention of the Recess has deprived me of an opportunity which I should have liked to take to consult the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, about this Amendment, because the view which I have formed on the advice I have been given is just that which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in relation to Clause 12. The reason why I am asking your Lordships not to make this Amendment, and I am inviting the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, not to press it, is simply that it is not necessary. We accept entirely what is suggested in the Amendment, but the position is that in Clause 26 provision is made for the doing by the new social work departments of the present function of the probation service in Scotland in relation to persons over 16, and that Clause 12, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, places on local authorities the duty of giving advice, guidance and assistance to persons released from detention who were not subject to compulsory supervision and so did not come within Clause 26.

As your Lordships are aware, in the past Parliament has not taken kindly to the expressing of the same duty and the same power in different clauses of the Bill, and it is solely for that reason that I am unable at this stage to accept the Amendment. However, I should like to take the opportunity of discussing this matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so that if he can persuade me that there is some reason why we should say the same thing twice—once perhaps generally, and the second time more specifically—I would be happy to pass these views, and any opinions which I have formed as a result of them, on to my right honourable friend for consideration in another place.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the way in which he has received this Amendment The reason why I thought these words should come in here was that this is the clause which sets out the way of preparing probation schemes, and it seemed desirable that all matters which might need to come under a probation scheme should be in one place. Presumably this is what local authorities will look at when they are framing a probation scheme, and it seems more satisfactory that all the points should be set out in one place. However, I appreciate that if it is possible for this to be done under Clause 12, that is an argument for not putting it in again. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to have a discussion with me afterwards, and I shall be glad to take advantage of that offer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which makes it clear that the supervision of persons released from prison or detention includes the supervision of persons required by an English provision to be supervised who remove to Scotland. The words "condition or requirement" import the necessary terms from the English legislation; namely, the Criminal Justice Act 1961. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 37, after ("State") insert ("or of a condition or requirement imposed").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 21 go together. They are drafting Amendments which are designed to make it completely clear that subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c), are not the only three matters that may be covered in a probation scheme. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 7, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.19 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (3)(c), to leave out from "courts" to the end of the subsection. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 20, which I should have moved during the Committee stage, and I apologise for being absent on that occasion. The purpose of the Amendment is simply this. I think the sentence, arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with the courts, should end there, because local authorities are perfectly capable of deciding who shall be members of their committees, whether it be the social work committee or the group dealing with probation (or what was probation), and I should like to see the last four lines deleted. I believe the local authority can perfectly well choose, among its members or from outside, who it wants to have on its committees.

With regard to the appointment of sheriffs, I can only speak from experience. I am the chairman of a probation committee on which we have two sheriffs. We invited them; we were not told to do so by the Secretary of State or anyone else, but we thought it was a good idea. Nobody could say that we should or should not have these important people on the committee. If we are to have a co-option—now, I am glad to say, limited to only one-third of the committee—then I think we should be allowed to co-opt whom we please. If it should be sheriffs (which it may well be), that is in order, but if it should be someone else the Secretary of State perhaps thinks ought to be co-opted, we are still free to do what in our opinion is best for our own areas. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 9, leave out from ("courts") to end of line 12.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in relation to this Amendment because I think that I am going to be open to the charge of being inconsistent. When the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, sought to have churchmen specified as people who should be co-opted, the argument which I put forward was the danger of saying that particular people should be in; and here the Government are specifying that sheriffs may be—not "must" be, but "may be—in. I had quite overlooked the fact that I now have on this a brief which encourages me to resist the Amendment from the point of view that it is felt that there is advantage in pointing out in this way the need for close co-operation with the courts and that this is one way in which it can be achieved.

I had hoped that the Third Reading could be a completely formal procedure, and that we should be able to avoid moving any Amendments at Third Reading. I am prepared to consider this as an exception. I should like an opportunity to consult my colleagues further about it. It seems to me that the attitude I am being encouraged to take is inconsistent on this matter, and I should like to know whether there are better reasons for this inconsistency than appear at the moment. If your Lordships would not take the resubmission of this Amendment by the noble Baroness on Third Reading as an encouragement to put in a whole host of others in company with it, I would invite her not to press the Amendment to-day but to put it down again for Third Reading, when I hope to be able to give at least a completely consistent answer on it.

As your Lordships will appreciate, this Bill is not my own direct departmental responsibility, and the difficulty I am in is that I am not aware to what extent this may be in as a result of direct consultation with the sheriffs, and it is only that which prevents me, as it were, going against my brief and accepting the Amendment. If there is any sort of undertaking with the sheriffs that this is a desirable thing to do, I am quite certain that the noble Baroness would not wish these words to be taken out. But I do not want to mislead her by suggesting that is the position, because I do not know. If the noble Baroness will withdraw the Amendment, I should be happy that this should, if necessary, exceptionally, come up again on Third Reading.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move Amendment No. 21.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 12, after ("thereof") insert(";and (d) such other matters as the local authority considers relevant to the service to be provided ".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to add to subsection (3): () arrangements for the provision of a welfare service within prisons". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amenment is to add to the functions of local authority social work departments that of providing a prison welfare service. I shall not be at all surprised to be told that this is not the right place or the right way to achieve this purpose, but if Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle I shall be happy to leave it to them to decide how to implement it.

Prison welfare work in England and Wales is already the responsibility of the probation and after-care service. In Scotland it is the responsibility of the After-care Council, but under subsection (7) of Clause 7 of this Bill that Council will cease to exist, and I am not clear what is envisaged for the future. Prison welfare work is a matter of increasing importance in the new types of prison regime which are being introduced, and I believe that the same people should be responsible for it as for probation and after-care work and that the Bill should provide for this. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may suggest that this work would come under the umbrella with which he has provided the local authorities under the last Amendment, but I do not feel that this could be so. A prison welfare service could hardly be reckoned part of a probation scheme, and if prison welfare is to be considered at all as one of the duties of a local authority social work department it should be specifically provided for. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 26 provides that there shall be a probation scheme only for the purposes of subsection (1); namely, the making of reports to courts and the statutory supervision of, and the provision of advice, guidance and assistance for, persons under compulsory supervision. The scheme will not affect the provision of a welfare service in prison. As the noble Lord has stated, the positions in England and Wales and Scotland are different at the present time. The prison welfare service is a long-established group of civil servants work- ing this job, and it is at least open to doubt whether they would view with any enthusiasm being transferred from the Civil Service to the local authority work service.

I cannot therefore, in asking the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, give him an assurance as to what would happen. All I can say is that the field is quite open. The Government are free to consider in future, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether social workers from the new social work departments should be seconded to the welfare service in prisons and other penal institutions in Scotland. It would not be necessary to have any statutory provision to make this possible. I do not want in any way to mislead the noble Lord. I cannot at this stage commit Her Majesty's Government to the attitude that will be adopted, but what I have said is possible, and I hope that de noble Lord will find it possible on the partial assurance I am able to give him, to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

My Lords, I hesitate to overdo my encouragement of the Scottish system to follow that of England. In most respects Scotland is ahead of England, but it seems to me that this is one of the few cases where Scotland is behind. The purpose of the Amendment was that, if Scotland wished to follow England, it would not be necessary to have amending legislation to this Act in order to achieve it. I understand that this is not so, and that if such a change were desired it could be done under the provisions of the Bill as it stands. On that assurance I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out subsection (6), and to insert instead: (6) For the purposes of their functions under this section every local authority shall appoint one or more officers holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and every such officer may perform such other functions of the local authority under this Act as the Social Work Committee may direct. Provided that where two or more local authorities have exercised their power to combine by virtue of section 119 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 for any of the purposes of this Act including the purposes of this section the expression "local authority" in this section shall include any joint authority established for those purposes.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to try to secure the compromise that I indicated might be possible between the two views: on the one hand the view that the probation service should continue as it is at present, and, on the other, the view that it should be absorbed completely and disappear into the social work service. The effect of this Amendment is, I hope—at any rate, it is intended to be—to require the local authorities to appoint one or more officers holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe", which would of course be the qualifications of probation training and experience, or if you like, training or experience. In this way it would be possible to retain the probation service as an ancillary unit, so to speak, within the social work department. But by reason of the second part of that sentence of the first paragraph of this subsection, they would not then be confined to probation work; they would be able also to do such other social work for the social work department as the local government committee may decide.

Because we do not know how this is going to work out, this may be a most satisfactory alternative. The factors are these. At the moment, there is no doubt at all that although probation officers may do the same basic training as other social workers, they have special training in addition, and no doubt for those who are going to deal with people sentenced to prison or put under probation this additional training will continue to be necessary. So it seems to me there is room for officers with this special training. In any case, so far as legislation is concerned, am I not right in saying that the legislation does not provide for probation officers as such? They are always referred to as "officers specially designated", and so on. I think that this is right, and on that assumption I have drafted my Amendment in that way.

The second part, the proviso, relates merely to the possibility of one or more local authorities combining together, in which case it would seem appropriate that it should be the social work committee of the authorities that have combined for this purpose, or even especially for die purpose of the probation scheme, who should be able to appoint an officer with these qualifications—"such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe".

I do not know whether this compromise commends itself to your Lordships. On the one hand, there is a lot to be said for a sharp cleavage, and, if we are making a lot of changes anyway, it could be said that it would be a good thing to "go the whole hog" and absorb the probation officers straight away. On the other hand, it may well be that it would be better from the morale point of view, and indeed from the point of view of the service as a whole, to keep probation officers as such in being for the present, and possibly for a long time.

We shall have to see how this works out. The fact remains that once the service is absorbed into the social work department it will be difficult to change it, even though the thing does not work too well. It is with this in mind, as a kind of hedge which I do not think can do the service any harm, that I am suggesting this compromise solution. I do not pretend that the Amendment is necessarily correctly worded, but I hope that its purpose is at least clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend because I think that here he has put his finger on something of considerable importance. I was not here when Clause 26 was debated, and I am a little sorry that the complete elimination of probation for adults was carried. However, as it has been carried, and as the probation service is in toto part of the social welfare service, I think it is most important that there should be people in the social welfare service who are definitely what I would call trained probation officers. As we know, they have a basic social training. That is perfectly understood. But when it comes to law and the courts, and to the technical problems which do not affect people who are, let us say, dealing with adoption or with any other kind of social work treatment, then I think it is most important to have people who, although not called "probation officers", have the training, the equipment, the knowledge and the understanding of what it is to work with the courts and with the sheriffs as well as with panels or in the social work department.

This is something that I should like to see incorporated in the Bill—a point made most strongly—that among the social workers in the social work departments there shall be people specially designated for, and understanding and knowing about, the courts, probation, after-care and so on. It is most important, and I hope that the noble Lord will consider this as being, as it were, a half-way house between those who are keen that the whole social work department should be treated as one unit and those who feel that there are special items in the social work departments which should be dealt with by someone trained for that purpose. I beg to support the Amendment.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Amendment. I am not going to say what I said on Committee. It goes a long way towards supporting the views that I expressed then. I think it is a good compromise and I should like to support it.

4.37 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has worked to try to find a compromise between the two extremes, if I may put it that way—the Bill incorporating probation service and the Bill as it would have been with Clause 26 left out. I am sorry, however, that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, and I should like to say in some detail why this is so. In the first place, I must resist the idea that particular responsibilities of the social work department are such that they should be carried out by officers with qualifications specified for the purpose. If we were to accept that, then we must accept it that a case could equally be made, and probably would be developed in the same way, for similar specifications for officers dealing with children with special types of handicap, or where family case work is concerned—all important departments which are to come under the umbrella of the social work department.

If we were to do this, it would cut completely across the principle of the Bill that the present resources of trained personnel should be brought together in an integrated department which would be responsible for meeting all requirements by the best use of all its resources. If that is not achieved, all that we are doing is merely to create an agglomeration of existing skills, working only in their traditional fields; saving something in administration perhaps, but not opening the way to constructive use of all professional skills. It is the Government's view that the arrangements set out in the Bill are adequate for this purpose; and care has been taken to see that the provisions will not produce a stereotyped plan applicable throughout the country. It will be possible for the probation schemes to vary according to local circumstances and their preparation requires consultation with the sheriff in the locality; and they must also be approved by the Secretary of State. It is certainly envisaged that arrangements will be made under the schemes for the appropriate representation of the, social work department at individual courts.

Secondly, it will be the responsibility of the social work department and their director of social work to carry out all the functions placed on the local authority by the Bill, including the function of providing a probation service for adults. It is recognised by the scheme-making provisions of Clause 26 that special arrangements are desirable to help to establish the new service in its work with the courts so that its potential can be developed and in due course the greater and more varied resources available can give an even better service to the courts than does the present probation service. It would be inappropriate to go beyond this by ruling, as the Amendment proposes, that officers must be specially recruited to a job whose main function, unless they have time to spare, relates only to probation. This would undermine the overall responsibilities of the director, who must be trusted to ensure that his department includes all the necessary specialist skills the work demands. It would be undesirable to create within his department a group of officers who might appear to have some special statutory status which the director would not have.

Thirdly, the idea that, when the new departments take over the probation responsibility, the work should continue to be carried out mainly by the officers who are now qualified for the purpose is accepted, but we should not wish to preclude the possibility—as the succeeding Amendment in line 23 would appear to—that officers with other skills might, under supervision, acquire probation experience and share in the work. To enable this would require a wider interpretation of the word "suitable" than noble Lords probably intend. This, we think, is the right way round, not as the two Amendments suggest, to recruit specialist probation officers and to allow them, at discretion, to be used in other parts of the integrated service.

I am sorry that, in spite of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put into his Amendment, it has produced no change in the Government's views on this matter. As I hope I have made clear, the effect of this Amendment or any similar Amendment would be to cut across the principle which the Government hold to be important in the creation of this new social work department. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

My Lords, I am somewhat confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said. During the Committee stage the noble Lord rebuked some of us for referring to the abolition of the probation service, and said that there was no question of the probation service being abolished; all that was to happen was that it was to be transferred to the local authority. I inferred from what the noble Lord said that the service would function under its own arrangements, with its own training, and so on, and that the only difference would be that it would come under the local authority. That seems to be different from what he has said to-day, since it appears that the probation service is to be abolished and that its members will be merged into the great new department which is being set up.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to go along with this Amendment. I am not sure that I can accept all the arguments which he has adduced. It is always possible to put forward the view that if one makes one exception then one must make others, but that is not necessarily a logical argument. It may be, for example, that one has to give a doctor a special status on a job, but it does not follow that everybody else should have a special status as well. The same applies to probation officers, who deal with a different class of person. There are all the social-work people who deal with those who are within the law, and at present one has a different set of people to deal with those who for the time being have put themselves outside the law, or who are subject to the restrictions of the law. I feel that this is an easy dichotomy to maintain, and I should have thought that it could be maintained. It is conceded by the noble Lord that if social workers were to be transferred to probation work they would need to receive additional training. I am not at all sure that, even if it were right, this would be possible under the probation scheme. If one is to make the special arrangements which the noble Lord says are desirable to give a new service to the courts, then the courts will expect that the people who are to give that service will have had the appropriate training. By "training", I do not mean simply academic qualifications, but training in the job.

I do not think that we ought to press this matter further at the moment, though I feel certain that the Government will be pressed further in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will ask his right honourable friend to give further consideration to this matter. He instanced a group of officers with a special statutory status which is not enjoyed by the director of social work; but surely it often happens that the boss, the person in charge, has neither the specialist qualifications which are possessed by others on his staff nor their special statutory status. The mere fact that there is a doctor on his staff would not enable the person who employs him to sign a certificate of death. It would be absurd to say that the boss should possess the sum of the special statutory status enjoyed by his employees. That will not stand up as an argument. The noble Lord has put forward some rather shaky arguments in reply to this Amendment. I do not think that it would be right for us to put this matter to the vote, but if my noble friends think otherwise I will go into the Lobby with them.

4.50 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?

4.57 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is a "fall-back" Amendment, if I may put it in that way, intended to ensure that the people who do probation work shall have the proper qualifications, or at least the training to do it. The noble Lord said at the last stage that he would consider this Amendment, the effect of which would be simply to add the words: with suitable training and experience for the function to be performed to subsection (6), which says Any function required by any enactment to be performed by a probation officer shall … he performed by an officer of the appropriate local authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 23, at end insert ("with suitable training and experience for the function to be performed.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43;Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Elliot of Harwood, Bs. [Teller.] Milverton, L.
Auckland, L. Falmouth, V. Molson, L.
Audley, Bs. Ferrier, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Fortescue, E. Newton, L.
Boston, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Polwarth, L.
Carrington, L. Goschen, V. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Conesford, L. Grenfell, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Cork and Orrery, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L.[Tellers.] St. Helens, L.
Craigmyle, L. St. Oswald, L.
Cromartie, E. Hawke, L. Sandys, L.
Daventry, V. Hives, L. Sempill, Ly.
Drumalbyn, L. Horsbrugh, Bs. Stonehaven, V.
Dudley, L. Jessel, L. Strathclyde, L.
Ebbisham, L. Killearn, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Lothian, M. Younger of Leckie, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L. Granville-West, L. Plummer, Bs.
Beswick, L. Greenway, L. Popplewell, L.
Birk, Bs. Henderson, L. Raglan, L.
Blyton, L. Heycock, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.] Hill of Wivenhoe, L. Rowley, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.] Royle, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L. Hirshfield, L. Rusholme, L.
Chalfont, L. Hughes, L. Segal, L.
Champion, L. Iddesleigh, E. Serota, Bs.
Chorley, L. Latham, L. Shackleton, L.
Clwyd, L. Leatherland, L. Silkin, L.
Collison, L. Lindgren, L. Snow, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Longford, E. Sorensen, L.
Cranbrook, E. McLeavy, L. Strabolgi, L.
Delacourt-Smith, L. Maelor, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Morrison, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Moyle, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.) Noel-Buxton, L. Tayside, L.
Garnsworthy, L. Phillips, Bs. Walston, L.
Williamson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I do not intend to say much in relation to this Amendment, because I cannot accept it, for the same reason that I put forward in rejecting the previous Amendment: that it cuts across the principle of the Bill that people should be trained for the functions of the department. As I have told the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, there is a technical fault in the Amendment. That does not matter a great deal, because if that were all that was wrong it could be easily rectified later. But the Amendment as worded would, in fact, cut out some of the people who are doing the job at present, by virtue of tin; insertion of the word "and". The Amendment refers to suitable training and experience", and although some of the people who are doing the job at the, present time have ample experience they do not have the formal training. That, however, is incidental. We cannot accept the idea that there should be categories of people with training for particular functions. This Amendment is merely a variation of the previous one, and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, the Minister says that in these departments we must have people who have not been trained just for a particular part of the work but are able, as I gather, after training, to take on any of the work. That surely is quite impossible. Are we to believe that the same person can be a home-help, also supplying facilities for laundering, and at the same time do the work of a probation officer? There must be differences; and I think we have to face the fact, if we are to get a good service, that we must have some people who specialise in certain work and others who will undergo a different type of training.

I want to see as much flexibility, by way of taking on one job after another, as possible; but there is a limit, and I think we have reached that stage if we think that in these social work departments everybody must have exactly the same skills, must have exactly the same training, and must then do first one job and then another. I think it is quite impossible. They will not do these jobs well. I could mention various other forms of social work to indicate how some could do one job but not another, but I give as an illustration the example of a person who is going to work as a probation officer and a person who is going to work as a domestic help.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I should like to challenge the Minister on one point. He says that there are people in the probation service today who are working without having had any training. It is a long time now since I was Chairman of the Advisory Council for Child Care in Scotland, but at the same time there was set up the Probation Training Committee (as I think it was called) for Scotland. That must be ten or fifteen years ago now, and I know that all probation officers taken on to-day (incidentally, I am myself chairman of a probation committee), and all probation officers who have been taken on in the last years, have been through this training. Some of them, of course, are fully experienced social workers who take the additional probation training over and above their social work degree or diploma, or whatever rank they have attained at university; others take simply the training of the probation officer. Quite honestly, I think that if, in these social work departments—and I am as keen as anyone about making them a success—you are not going to say that a person working in the courts and with adult people should have a training different from that of those who are dealing with child care, you really are going to get in the most terrible muddle.

I very much hope that the Government will give further thought to this. They may not accept these Amendments now, but such a provision really is necessary, because otherwise you are not going to have people prepared to train to deal with the courts and to do what the sheriffs require of them as well as to undergo that generic training in social work which, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is also wanted. I hope that the Government will think about this again, because I am quite sure that a social work department would be very much better if it had among its many members several who had special skills—and a training for probation and dealing with the courts, although it might not be specified as such, is one of the skills that is quite essential. At the present time, in my opinion, the probation service in Scotland is composed of trained people, and it is through the Probation Training Committee for Scotland that this training has been secured.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I recognise that there may be a defect in the drafting of this Amendment inasmuch as, although what my noble friend who has just spoken has said is true of all who have entered the probation service in the last two decades, at any rate, there probably are some people who were appointed straight to the job without having had any formal training as probation officers; so to that extent the Amendment might exclude them from consideration for appointment. Nevertheless, I think the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. I urge the noble Lord to put words of this kind into the Bill. It really seems to me absolutely essential.

If the noble Lord wants to pronounce an epitaph on the working of this Bill, let him repeat what he has said—and I noted his words as closely as I could. He said: "The principle of this Bill is that people should not be specially trained for the functions they have to perform". That is what the noble Lord said. If, in this age of specialisation, that is the basis on which the Bill is going to be worked, then I am certain it will not be very successful, for, as we have tried to point out, there are special skills in dealing with people who have put themselves beyond the law. So although the noble Lord is not able to accept this Amendment—and I understand the reasons why—I urge him to put some words into the Bill to make certain that the people who are to perform these duties vis-à-vis the courts will have such special training as will commend them to the courts and enable them to do the jobs that the courts will expect.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if your Lordships would permit me to reply, I think there are points here which must be answered. I do not want to appear to be sitting silent because I have no answer. Of course the noble Baroness is right when she talks about the need for having specialist skills inside such a department. Of course that will be so. What the Government object to is saying that a particular job shall be done only by a person with a specialist skill. May I give two examples? A specialist probation officer may be able to give valuable help to a handicapped child who is not delinquent. Nothing in the Amendment which has been put forward would stop that from happening. But, conversely, the position might well be that a medical social worker would be the best person to help a particular handicapped child who has been at some stage delinquent—and, if the Amendment were accepted, that person would not be regarded as having the specialist skill. Of course there will be different skills in the department, and we want to be able to make use of them. It has never been suggested that we are going to take all the specialist training and put it into a mincing machine, and that only one particular type of skill will come out. But because people choose to specialise in a particular way—and that may be the bulk of the work they do in the department—it does not follow that they are not qualified to be used or that they cannot be used in other directions. It is because we feel that either to have accepted the previous Amendment or to accept this one would deprive the department of the best use of the different specialist skills that are available to it, and would in fact frustrate the creation of a proper social work department, that the Government are so adamant in resisting this Amendment, as they did the last one.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.9 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a local authority," and insert the Secretary of State". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that instead of the reporter being appointed by the local authority he should be appointed by the Secretary of State. The duties of the reporter are much more similar to the duties of, say, the sheriff than they are to the duties carried out by local authorities. In particular, he will have the duty of advising the children's panel on whether they should issue a warrant. We have been over the arguments, and I think it should be possible for me to move this Amendment with extreme brevity. I merely say that I still feel that it would be a decided improvement if the reporter, instead of being appointed by the local authority, as is the director of social work, were somebody able to deal on a much more independent basis, on a much more clear-cut basis, as an officer of the Secretary of State working together with an officer of another Department. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 9, leave out ("a local authority,") and insert ("the Secretary of State").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the reason which I advanced against accepting this proposal previously was the one put forward by the Kilbrandon Committee; namely, that it is essential to the panel concept that children's hearings should be emphatically local and not have any appearance of being part of a national judicial system. They must be local bodies able to consider children against their local environment and able to work closely with the local authority services. There must be close working relations between the reporter and the director of social work. The Kilbrandon Committee suggested that the panels and the reporter should be appointed by the sheriff—that is the Sheriff Principal. It was decided, however, that this did not seem to be the best method of achieving the aim that the panels should be fully representative of their locality, and the sheriffs themselves expressed unanimously the wish that they should not be given this responsibility because they felt that they were not in the best position to achieve the objective. We cannot therefore accept the Kilbrandon Committees' suggestion about the method of appointment. Having regard to the expression of the Committee that the emphasis should be on the local nature, we think it right that the appointment should be made by the local committees rather than by the Secretary of State. I find myself in the somewhat unusual position that on this occasion I am arguing that the gentleman in Whitehall—or in St. Andrew's House—is not necessary the one who knows best.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am afraid that I remain obstinately—if the noble Lord so wishes—unconvinced by this argument. Of course, it will be a local service because the members of the children's panel will be drawn entirely from the locality. But in view of the special functions to be performed, I think it highly desirable that there should not be too close a working arrangement between the reporter and the director of social work; I think it right that they should be professionally and functionally separate. For that reason, I think it would be a better solution for the reporter to be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than by the local authority.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 36:

Reports of cases of children who may require compulsory measures of care and the interim detention of such children in places of safety

36.—

(2) A constable or such officer as aforesaid may take to a place of safety any child in respect of whom any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 has been or is believed to have been committed, and any child so taken to a place of safety or any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and where a child is so detained the constable or officer shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case.

(5) Any warrant issued or renewed by a children's hearing under this Part of this Act shall have the like effect as a warrant of apprehension issued by a sheriff under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954, and the person named in the warrant may be apprehended as a person unlawfully at large in any part of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, and any enactment relating to the execution of a warrant issued by a sheriff as aforesaid shall, with any necessary modifications, apply accordingly.

5.15 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "the reporter of the case", and insert: the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and the reason therefor and give the reporter details of the case.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that when we came to this point on the Committee stage we were in the curious position that the noble Lord was about to accept my Amendment when my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh—whom I am glad to see has just taken his place—thought that there might be difficulties about this; and we did not at that time pursue the Amendment. The end of Clause 36(2) reads as follows: … where a child is so detained a constable or officer shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case. It will be remembered that on the last occasion I wanted the parent also to be informed; but as my Amendment was drafted the effect of it would have been that the parent would have had to be given all the information about the case as well as being informed that the child was detained. My Amendment on the Marshalled List tries to overcome this difficulty by making the subsection read: — inform the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and the reason therefore and give the reporter details of the case.

The noble Lord and I had a word about this Amendment beforehand. He pointed out that there may be difficulties about informing the parent of "the reason therefor" because the child might be implicated, for example, in an offence which also involved an adult and because further police inquiries might have to be made. If that is so—and if it is in order for me to do so—I would move the Amendment merely in the form: … the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and give the reporter details of the case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("inform") to end of line 16 and insert ("the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and give the reporter details of the case.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, I seem to have been the cause of noble Lords on both Front Benches having second thoughts. That is a great impertinence on my part; but I think their second thoughts are very much better than their first. I am still not entirely happy about making statutory and mandatory a process which will in almost every case be done without any statutory need. But I will not oppose it. I congratulate the noble Lords concerned on their agreement, and venture to hope that my intervention will have improved the Bill to a slight degree.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, described his intervention, causing the occupants of both Front Benches to have second thoughts, as an impertinence. I would describe it as an accomplishment. But, unfortunately for the Amendment, my second thoughts are against it. My first thoughts, as noble Lords know, were to accept the Amendment because I had not completely foreseen the police and other objections that might arise. As the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was tabled it was even more unacceptable, because the inclusion of the words "and the reason therefor"— which he has now struck out—could have frustrated almost completely police procedure in certain cases where there might be a member of the family involved in an offence against a child.

I hold the view expressed by noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh: that there could be cases where it would be undesirable to make it a formal requirement that the police should inform the parents. As the Bill stands, the formal way of dealing with it would be that the reporter, and through him the director of soc al work, would be the channel through which the parents should be informed of a child's detention. Under Clause 36(2) the police must inform the reporter forthwith, and where a child is detained the reporter must arrange a children's hearing to sit on the first lawful day after the commencement of the child's detention. For this purpose the parent must be informed, so that as soon as the reporter receives notification from the police he must put in hand the machinery for convening a children's hearing and for ensuring that the parents are present. So in every case the parents are going to be told. It could complicate the position—I cannot put it more strongly than that—in the occasional case if there were a formal requirement compelling the police to give this information to the parents. For that reason alone, even with the return of the Amendment to the form in which it was at the last stage, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.

5.20 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sorry about this, because it might easily happen that a child would be taken into care or detained, say on a Saturday evening, possibly when coming back from a football match, and presumably the reporter would not be available until the following Monday morning. It seems to me quite wrong that in the meantime parents should be left in doubt of the whereabouts of their child. I do not think this can be the final answer. We have whittled it down to merely informing the parent that the child is not lost but is in detention. The parent has a right to know, and I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should find that there could be any exception in a case of this kind, except where the parent is himself taken into detention, or perhaps is incapable of acting because he is in a mental home. But I cannot see why, in every other case, a parent should not be informed if his child is detained.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, if we do not do this, surely we shall get into the most serious trouble. Some parents may be desperately worried if a child who they thought had gone to a football match or to the cinema does not return home. They will go to the police, and unnecessary hardship will be caused to them. I cannot see the argument against stating in the Bill that parents must be told if a child is in the hands of the police or cannot return home for some other reason. Not to inform the parents seems to me cruel and unnecessary. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, should not include this, simply as an ordinary safeguard against parents being agitated and worried. The child might be quite frightened if it were on its own in the hands of the police. I am amazed that the noble Lord is unwilling to make this Amendment, which is quite simple and straightforward and ought to form part of the Bill.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it is because it looks so simple and straightforward that it is difficult to persuade your Lordships and the noble Baroness that it is right not to make the Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, the police would in every circumstance have to notify the parent of a detention. There could be circumstances in which that would be undesirable. I have mentioned the case where a member of the family is concerned, and it could well be that notification in the way suggested would be the very thing that would frustrate the proper carrying out of proceedings. The parents might weigh the advantage of allowing a culprit to escape against the desirability of proceedings being taken.

Dealing with the case of which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke, of a child being taken into custody after a Saturday football match and the parents not knowing anything about it until the following Monday, I would remind your Lordships that a hearing must take place on the Monday, under the terms of the Bill, because that would be the next lawful day. Proceedings would therefore have to be put in hand so that, even in such a case, the latest time at which the parents would know would be when arrangements for the hearing were being made on the Sunday. I should like to point out that we are talking about exceptional cases. Of course, in ordinary circumstances the police would do the job in the same way as they do normally. We wish to protect the right of the police, in the proper execution of their duty, not to do this if it would frustrate the proper carrying out of their task. Obviously, it would be in very exceptional circumstances that this would occur, but the last thing on earth that we want to happen would be that something could not be carried to its proper conclusion because the provisions in the Bill required us, as it were, to "tip off" someone in a way that would frustrate police proceedings.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.27 p.m.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "issue" and insert "apply to the sheriff for". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to say how much I regret that I was not able to be present during the Committee stage proceedings. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for my absence, but I had made an appointment a long time before, and it was quite impossible to change the date. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for moving the Amendment which I had put down to deal with this very difficult and, as I think, very important subject of who can issue warrants for the apprehension of these children, or anybody else.

I read carefully and with great interest the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his reasons for not accepting the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not wish to be in the least rude if I say that it seemed to me he made out an exceedingly good case for accepting the Amendment. He spoke of the various powers and of the times when a warrant could be issued. I feel strongly that warrants should be issued not by members of the hearing but by the sheriff. We are told in the Bill that warrants issued by members of the hearing would have the same effect as a sheriff's warrant. They could issue a warrant for an officer of the law to go to a child's home and take the child away and put him somewhere else, because the officer thought that the child might not attend the hearing which was to take place. During the course of the hearing, if it went on for several days, a warrant could be issued to enable a child to be put somewhere in order that he should not run away while the case was being conducted. If a child did run away after having been put into what is called a residential home under compulsory care (we are told that detention is no longer a punishment but that, instead, there is compulsory care) a warrant could be issued for his apprehension. That, my Lords, is the outline given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, during the Committee stage.

I think that most noble Lords would agree with me that these are great powers. Most of the people with whom I have discussed the matter feel that it would be much better that a request should be sent to the sheriff to issue a warrant. In every other case of dispute an appeal can be made to the sheriff. At the beginning of the hearing, if there is no dispute about the facts—in other words (although we must not use court language), if the child pleads guilty—the hearing can go on, but if the child or the parent challenges the facts the hearing cannot go on until an appeal is made to the sheriff to decide. In every case, except on this most important point of issuing a warrant, the appeal is to the sheriff. It is left to these individuals. I have nothing against these people. I am certain that they will do their best, but they have not the training and the standing.

Suppose that a policeman went with a warrant to a child's home and said that he was going to take the child away, and put him somewhere else because he might run away before the hearing. If the parents want to find out on whose authority the policeman is taking him away, and are told that it is on the authority perhaps of Mrs. "So-and-so" next door, I do not think that that will carry very much weight—indeed, it will be much resented. It has been said—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said this on Committee stage—that we were giving the hearing a tremendous amount of responsibility. They can decide on treatment or training. They can send a child to a residential establishment—the term "approved school" is to go. Why not give them the power of issuing a warrant as well? But in all those cases the parent or child can appeal to the sheriff. It is a strange thing that on this one point it is left entirely to the members of the hearing.

I would ask the noble Lori, Lord Hughes, to consider this point again, because it goes wider than this Bill. It gives these people more responsibility than the majority of people in this country would think was right. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what is the reason for this peculiar arrangement. From what he said, it almost: sounded as though it was to give them a little more importance. I hope very much that another decision will be taken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 6, leave out ("issue") and insert ("apply to the sheriff for").—(Baroness Horsbrugh.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I must admit to a certain feeling of surprise at the way in which the noble Baroness has moved this Amendment, and particularly at the interpretation which she has placed on what I said on Committee stage. Let me say right away that I never said, and certainly never intended that it should be taken from anything I did say, that we were conferring the power to issue a warrant only in order to increase the importance of the members of the children's hearing. The power to issue warrants is being given because we consider it an essential part of the powers which the children's hearing should have in order to carry out their duties.

One would have thought from the way in which the noble Baroness deployed her case that the giving of this power to lay people was a completely new departure. Of course it is not. Many lay people have this power at the present time. A justice of the peace, a bailie and a police judge can issue a warrant. These are lay persons just as are members of the children's hearing. So that conferring power of this kind is certainly not a departure of principle.

I think that the noble Baroness is wrong in saying that this is the only case where the sheriff has not to make the decision and that all other major decisions are taken by the sheriff. The noble Baroness made it appear as if almost everything had to be decided by the sheriff before the hearing dealt with the matter. That is not so. There are circumstances in which an appeal to the sheriff will lie. In this case, if a warrant for interim detention is issued and if the parents want to appeal to the sheriff, they must be heard within three days, so that there is adequate safeguard against wrongful detention. We are seeking to create a new piece of judicial machinery and it is desirable that there should be the same opportunity for it to carry out its functions as any other piece of machinery we have. It goes no further than that. If we were to accept this Amendment we should be bringing in for the first time a case where the sheriff would be the first instance and not simply on appeal. For that reason, the Amendment is ill-founded.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, surely the sheriff would not be the first instance. It would be that an appeal had gone to him about a particular difficulty —that they thought the boy was going to run away, or something of that sort—and he would then be asked to issue the warrant.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Baroness is confusing an action taken by the children's hearing with an appeal, which appeal does go to the sheriff.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I think my noble friend has stated a strong case here, and one cannot just let it go at what has been said. The difficulty here is that these children's hearings will issue warrants in cases even when they are unable to dispose of the case, or when they have reason to think that the child may run away in the meantime, and cases of that sort. This is a matter which seriously interferes with the liberty of the subject. In cases like that I think there can be no reason that this is for the protection of the child, the protection of the child's reputation in the future, and that sort of thing, and there is no reason why the matter should not go to the sheriff. This is not going to the sheriff for judgment; it is going to the sheriff for the protection of the individual. The children's hearings are not there for the protection of the individual. This is not their purpose. They are there for the care of the child, which is a totally different purpose.

It seems to me that you cannot divide this out and say that beyond a certain age the protection of the individual lies with the sheriff, and below that age it lies with the children's panel. Here it is the sheriff who has to make up his mind as to whether or not a warrant should be issued. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that elected bailies and police judges can issue warrants. He is also right in saying that justices appointed by the Secretary of State can issue warrants. But I know of no case where warrants can be issued by persons who are simply appointed as a panel by local authorities. The bailies are elected persons; the police judges are elected persons; and the justices are appointed by the Secretary of State. I know of no case where appointed persons—admittedly here they are appointed by the Secretary of State—can issue warrants. I should have thought that in cases of this kind, when the case of a child has to go to the children's hearing, the appropriate person to ensure that the child is kept in safe custody before that hearing by issuing the warrant, should be the sheriff. The child, so far, has not been proved to have committed any offence, and pending the decision of the children's hearing the appropriate person should he the sheriff.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord is under a certain misapprehension here. In the first instance, it is not correct to say that bailies are elected. He said that they were elected persons, and that is true. But the electors do not choose bailies. The electors choose councillors, and the assembled council decide who are to be the bailies: and in this case the warrant is capable of being issued by a bailie. But that is by the way. The noble Lord says that he knows of no case where it could be done other than by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. But the panels are appointed by the Secretary of State. So in this case the requisite which the noble Lord is putting forward as a justification in certain cases for the issue of a warrant does apply, because the panels are nominees of the Secretary of State.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave at the last stage that consideration should be given to the limitation. The clause as drafted places no restriction on the period during which a child might be detained in a place of safety and would now oblige a hearing to consider his case within seven days of the date of the commencement of the child's detention. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will find this Amendment acceptable.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 12, at end add— ("() A children's hearing arranged for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall meet within a period of seven days from the date of the commencement of the detention of the child, and no child shall be detained under that subsection after the hearing has met or beyond that period.")—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do find it acceptable. I think the period

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. Newton, L.
Audley, Bs. Fortescue, E. Oakshott, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Robertson of Oakridge, L
Blackford, L. Grenfell, L. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Boston, L. Gridley, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]
Carrington, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. St. Helens, L.
Conesford, L. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. St. Oswald, L.
Cromartie, E. Hawke, L. Sandford, L.
Daventry, V. Horsbrugh, Bs. Sandys, L.
Denham, L. Inglewood, L. Sempill, Ly.
Drumalbyn, L. Killearn, L. Somers, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Lothian, M. Strathcarron, L.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Margadale, L. Strathclyde, L.
Falkland, V. Milverton, L. Swinton, E.
Falmouth, V. Mowbray and Stourton, L. Younger of Leckie, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Beswick, L. Henderson, L. Royle, L.
Birk, Bs. Heycock, L. Rusholme, L.
Bowles, L. Hughes, L. Segal, L.
Champion, L. Hunt, L. Serota, Bs. [Teller.]
Chorley, L. Kirkwood, L. Shackleton, L.
Collison, L. Leatherland, L. Silkin, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Lindgren, L. Snow, L.
Delacourt-Smith, L. Longford, E. Sorensen, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. McLeavy, L. Strabolgi, L.
Feversham, L. Mitchison, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Fleck, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.] Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Plummer, Bs. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.) Popplewell, L. Tayside, L.
Garnsworthy, L. Rhodes, L. Walston, L.
Granville of Eye, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Greenway, L. Rowley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of 72 hours I put down earlier was possibly rather short. This will give an additional latitude, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for meeting the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41:

Conduct of children's hearing and summary application to sheriff for finings

41.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, at the commencement of a children's healing, and before proceeding to the consideration of the case, it shall be the duty of the chairman to explain to the child and his parent the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral of the case, and to ascertain whether these grounds are accepted in whole or in part by the child and his parent.

(2) Thereafter— (a) where the child and his pare it accept the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed;

(8) The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which I hope, with the first line of Clause 41(1), may go some way towards meeting the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made in Committee about the positioning of subsection (8) as an afterthought in the clause. Of course, the real answer to that criticism is in the first line of the clause, which directs people's attention immediately to the subsequent subsections. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 30, leave out ("and to ascertain") and insert ("for the purpose of ascertaining").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I was wondering whether the noble Lord was dealing with the clause we have before us. I may be quite wrong but I cannot quite connect what he has said with the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "accept" to insert "or if his parent is not present the child accepts". The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are essentially drafting Amendments. I am bound to say that I think it is very much better, if it is at all possible, to know what is being said straight away without having to look at the end of the clause to find out that something rather different may be meant. In this particular instance we have on page 26, line 33: (a) where the child and his parent accept the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed. And the next subsection is very much the same. Then we find at the end of the clause: (8) The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present. It seems to me that it would be very much simpler in both paragraphs (a) and (b) to say: Where a child and his parent accept or if his parent is not present the child accepts, the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed. I quite recognise that the particularly wary reader of this subsection will have been warned in subsection (1) that he must look at subsections (7) and (8) but he will have probably forgotten it before he gets to subsection (2). In any case, I am sure that my drafting is very much better than that of the Bill in this particular instance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 33, after ("accept") insert ("or if his parent is not present the child accepts ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

I must accept that at the conclusion of the last Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, rather startled me by trying to plant in my mind the idea that I was talking about the wrong Amendment. That was not in fact so, because I was dealing with the same clause and I referred to the criticism which he made and which he has now repeated namely, that it is not a good thing to wait until subsection (8) to find out that this concerns the acceptance by the parents of referral, et cetera. I pointed out that the previous Amendment went some way to meet the objection. In any event, the real answer to the objection which he then made, and which he has repeated in these Amendments, is that the very first words in the clause are "Subject to the provisions of subsections (7) and (8)". So people's attention is directed to the position right at the very outset.

It really boils down, in the question of Amendments 40, 41 and 42, to what one considers the best way of wording it. I think the argument used, or at any rate implied, by the noble Lord was that there is a certain inelegance about the way in which the clause is drafted at the present time.

I am not seeking to decide which is the more delightful way of wording the clause: what I am putting forward is that the clause, as it has now been amended, is a perfectly straightforward way of dealing with the job and is preferable to the wording which the noble Lord has endeavoured now three times —twice in your Lordships' House and once privately—to get me to accept. I remain of the opinion that Clause 41, as now amended by Amendment 39, is perfectly satisfactory, and that it would not be an improvement to accept Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sorry about that. May I just read subsection (8): The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present". I compare that with this: where the child and his parents accepts or if the parent is not present the child accepts". I must bow to the noble Lord's ideas on this matter, but I must say that I should like to see his taste improved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 [Disposal of case by children's hearing other than by discharge of referral]:

6.2 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the powers which a local authority will be able to exercise on behalf of a child under a supervision requirement (which, under Clause 43(5), has to be administered by the local authority) will be the same as those they can exercise for a child in their care on a voluntary basis. It seems reasonable that a local authority should be able to use these powers, which include the assumption of parental rights, the furtherance of the child's best interests, the making of financial and other arrangements for the education and training of children over school age, the after-care of children who have left the care of the local authority, and related matters. The power to discharge or vary the supervision requirement remains with the children's hearing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 3, at end insert— ("and a child who is subject to such a supervision requirement shall, for the purposes of sections 15 to 19, 23 to 25, 27 and 28 of this Act, be in their care: Provided that where the performance of a function under any of the said sections in relation to the child requires, or would be facilitated by, the variation or discharge of the supervision requirement, the local authority shall recommend a review of the requirement under this Part of this Act.)—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Legal aid in proceedings before the sheriff and any appeals to the Court of Session]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out "a decision of". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure, or was to secure, that an appeal could be made not only against the decision of a children's hearing but also against the procedure in a children's hearing. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having pointed out to me that this Amendment is in itself defective, and the right place to have made it would have been in subsection (1) of Clause 48, and not here, because this merely picks up the proceedings on which appeals may be made, and Clause 48 lays down what those proceedings are.

The reason I have put this Amendment down is that in various parts of this Bill there are provisions as to what the children's hearing must do, how it must conduct itself. If it does not conduct itself in those ways, it seems to me that most certainly an appeal should lie. I do not know what other remedy exists unless an appeal lies. This Amendment may not be in the right place, but I would invite the noble Lord to have a look at the matter again, because if it is true that there is no other remedy in a case where a children's hearing does not proceed correctly, and a decision is reached, it may be that it would not be possible to challenge the decision but it might be possible to challenge the procedure at the hearing, if the Bill were in those terms. I recognise that it many cases, perhaps even in most cases, it may be sufficient to challenge the decision. But as the Bill lays down how the children's hearing shall proceed, it seems to be more than conceivable that sot nothing can go wrong on procedure, and it should be possible to challenge that procedure on appeal, as well as to challenge the decision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 20, leave out ("a decision of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think, briefly, that the point which the noble Lord makes is whether an appeal against a decision includes an appeal against the procedure by which the decision was arrived at. I would confirm that that is our intention: that the appeal should lie in the wider field. We think that the wording covers both points, but I cannot give a firm assurance that it does. By the time I had ascertained what the noble Lord wanted, time did not permit me to consult the Lord Advocate, whom I should wish to consult in this matter. But I firmly give the assurance that if the Lord Advocate advises that the wording —the word "decision"—could in fact he interpreted as meaning the decision only, and would not cover the wider field, we will in another place undertake such Amendment as the Lord Advocate advises as necessary to achieve that purpose.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause: (4) This section shall extend to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment again to restore words that were taken out by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at the last stage, but also to add other words. The clause in question, Clause 57, deals with the prohibition of the publication of proceedings. The words that were taken out were: This section shall extend to England and Wales". The reasons why they were taken out are, first of all, because Clause 96 says: The following provisions of this Act shall extend to England and Wales, that is to say—… section 57". So in fact Section 57 does extend to England and Wales. The second reason was that Northern Ireland was also coming into this and Amendments are later to be moved to bring it in.

It is so unusual to have a clause in a Scottish Bill of this kind which applies to England and Wales that I think it is most important that on the face of the clause in question, and in the Bill, it should be made quite clear that this shall extend to England and Wales. It is even more unusual with regard to Northern Ireland. It should not be left to somebody to have to look up what is not even really an Interpretation Clause but a somewhat unusual clause, in a Scottish Bill at any rate, at the end of the Bill, to find out whether this applies to England and Wales or whether it does not. It is very unusual in a Scottish Bill, and there is a very strong case for putting these words fairly and squarely in the Bill so that those concerned with these matters—and of course the Press and radio, the B.B.C. and I.T.V., will be very much concerned with them—may be forewarned straight away as soon as they see this in the Bill. They will then be able to see the obligations that are laid on them by this clause, and the fact that the clause applies to them, most exceptionally, at one and the same time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in the usual way what is done in the Bill by listing in Clause 96 the clauses in what is essentially a Scottish Bill which apply outside Scotland is a useful and tidy arrangement by means of which it is possible for people to see right away the extent to which the Bill has an application outside the borders of Scotland. From that point of view it is preferable to having scattered through the Bill the relevant pieces of information in such a way that if anyone wanted to find out the extent to which the Bill applied outside Scotland then, in the absence of Clause 96, they find it out only by reading through the whole Bill. Having said that, I think that because of the effect that this particular clause has on Press and television—it might be the only part of the Bill at which the Press or television authorities would have an occasion to look—a useful purpose would be served by having a repetition in this case, and, exceptionally, I should be prepared to agree that there should be this statement in the clause itself. For that reason only I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure he is right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Registration]:

6.12 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "other person" and insert "person under the control of that person". The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is another attempt to find a suitable form of words to meet the point I raised in Committee. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, actually satisfied me as to the purpose behind the last few words of this subsection. He gave me a number of examples, but looking at the subsection again it seems to me that the wording is too wide and too imprecise and would have wider implications than the actual example he gave. I think he spoke of the possibility of an assistant matron who might have committed an offence in relation to a particular establishment and who still remained in the employ of the matron of that establishment. This Amendment is designed to narrow down the clause to the more precise type of example given by the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 8, leave out ("other person") and insert ("person under the control of that person").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, what the noble Marquess has just said shows the disadvantage of getting an Amendment withdrawn by citing a particular example of what can be done, because if the Amendment is then moved in another form, as it now has been so moved, the temptation is to seek a further example to induce the further Amendment to be withdrawn. It is not really a highly satisfactory way of dealing with it. One could go on ad infinitum in trying to get variations of the Amendment and of the example. We prefer to leave the clause as it is because there could be circumstances—and I am not going to cite a case—where the conditions requiring the possible cancellation were not caused by the person having control of the establishment or by a person under the control of that person. It could be someone who in fact had no business to be there, who had been given no authority by the person running the establishment and therefore could not be considered to be under his control; but the very fact that a certain thing applied might be clear enough indication that the place was not being run in a proper fashion, and yet if one were not able to make use of that circumstance it might be impossible to deal with the matter.

I pointed out on a previous occasion that this is a power which is likely to be used only in the most extreme cases by an authority, and it is a power which quite rightly is hedged by the right of appeal. In those circumstances it is most unlikely that any local authority will act unreasonably in the matter, and if they did act unreasonably the appeal tribunal would put things right. In these matters we are dealing with the improbable, the thing which is most unlikely to arise but which we cannot say with certainty will not arise. Therefore we consider the prime consideration should be the interests of those who are in the establishment rather than those who are running the establishment, so long as there are due safeguards for those who are running it. In those circumstances, even without a specific example I hope the noble Marquess will once again be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further explanation. I will not press him for examples on this occasion and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 [Appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause: (6) In any proceedings under this section a person who appeals to an appeal tribunal may be represented by another person.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage we discussed Schedule 4 paragraph 6(2), which says: The power under this paragraph to make rules as to procedure includes power to make provision as to the representation of one person in any proceedings by another person by another person. Two issues emerged from that. The first was how we should secure that a person should have a right to be represented by another person, and the second was, given that right, what the rules of procedure should be. They seemed to me to be two entirely separate issues, and at the time I suggested the first was a substantive provision and therefore ought to be in the body of the Bill. I have accordingly put it in the body of the Bill and I hope the Amendment is quite clear. This is, of course, referring to people who lose their registration licences. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 18 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord places me in a certain difficulty. At the last stage I undertook that we would consult the Council on Tribunals about this matter with a view to getting their advice whether the point should be covered in rules or by an Amendment in another place. I have followed up that undertaking and the matter has been placed before the Council on Tribunals but we have not yet received their advice. It seems to me at the very least it would be rather discourteous to the Council on Tribunals if, having sought their advice whether we should amend the Bill or whether it should be done by rule, we then went ahead and amended the Bill. It might appear that we were not very interested in the advice which they might give. I am certain that that is not the intention in anyone's mind and I am prepared to undertake to implement whatever advice we may be given. Of course, if the advice is to amend the Bill it will be done in another place.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I did not know the terms on which he had approached the Council on Tribunals, and I agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69 [Escape from a place of safety, or from the control of a person imposed by a supervision requirement]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out "escapes" and insert "absconds".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 51.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 38, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.20 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), at the beginning to insert: Subject to the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of section 43 of this Act".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite certain how far this Amendment is necessary, in view of the next Amendments the noble Lord is going to move himself, but as the clause now stands there is still no alternative to taking the child who escapes from a place of safety back to the same place of safety, whatever the circumstances may be. Yet there may be circumstances in which it is undesirable to do so. In order to get over that, I have suggested the words "Subject to the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of section 43 of this Act", and these subsections enable the director of social work to direct that the child shall be required to reside in a different place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right in associating to some extent this Amendment No. 52 with the Amendments I shall be moving, Nos. 53 and 54. Those Amendments are an alternative way of dealing with this point. They clarify the position in the light of the discussion which we had at the last stage on the methods of dealing with children who abscond from a place of safety or from a person under whose control they have been placed under a supervision requirement. If I may continue speaking to those Amendments, I think it is the best way of proceeding. The first Amendment, to page 42, line 7, is drafting. It removes from Clause 69(2)(b) the reference to a child subject to a supervision requirement requiring him to reside in a residential establishment who would, if he absconded and was brought back. be dealt with under Clause 70. The new subsection (3) provides that if the occupier of the place of safety from which the child has absconded is unwilling to receive him back the child is to be placed in a place of safety until his case comes before the children's hearing. This would inevitably be a different place from the original place of detention as, by definition, a place of safety must be willing to receive a child. This provision is comparable to the new provision in Clause 39(5) for cases where a child fails to attend a hearing of his case and is detained.

Secondly, if the person under whose control the child was placed is unwilling to take him back the child is likewise to be placed in a place of safety. If that person is not suitable to be given control of the child, again the director of social work has power under Clause 43(6) to transfer the child to another person or another place. Subsection (4) provides that a children's hearing arranged to hear the case of a child to which this clause refers must meet within seven days from the date of commencement of the child's detention. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will withdraw his Amendment No. 52 and concur in due course in my Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I am still not absolutely certain that my Amendment could not be useful in addition to the noble Lord's Amendments, because, as I said, it is mandatory in the clause as it stands that the child arrested in pursuance of this section shall be brought back, and this says, in the case a child brought back in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, that he shall be brought back to the person under whose control he has been placed unless that person is unwilling to accept him. I do not want to press this Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to have another look at it. It is unsatisfactory to put in a mandatory provision and say it can be overridden. It does not look well. I think the subsection ought to say "Subject to the other provisions in the clause". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 7, leave out from ("placed") to end of line 9.—(Lord Hughes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 10, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 15 and insert (", in the case of a child required to be brought back in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection,—

  1. (a) the occupier of the place of safety, or
  2. (b) the person under whose control he has been placed,
is unwilling to receive him, the child shall be placed in a place of safety until the dis- posal of his case, or as the case may be, until he can be brought before a children's hearing for a review of the supervision requirement to which he is subject. (4) A children's hearing arranged for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall meet within a period of seven days horn the date of the commencement of the detention of the child, and no child shall be detained under that subsection after the hearing has met or beyond that period.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Escapes from residential establishments]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 55.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 18, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 56.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 19, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [Parents of a child subject to an approved school order or a committal order moving to Scotland]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is an Amendment which the Home Office wish us to insert to restrict the reference in Clause 75 to children committed to care to avoid its covering committals to care as a result of matrimonial proceedings. The point, I am assured, has no Scottish relevance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 16, leave out ("or") where secondly occurring and insert ("under Parts III or IV of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or Part II of the Education Act 1944, or committed to the care").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 58 and 71 are related. Originally it was thought unnecessary to include in the Bill a provision about the transfer of assets, as the probation service (the service primarily concerned) operates from the offices of local authorities and there is little properly to transfer, apart from equipment and possibly cars. I am now advised that it would be better to have a transfer of assets clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 83 insert the following new clause:

Transfer of assets and liabilities

(".Where any functions are transferred to a local authority by virtue of this Act all property, rights, liabilities and obligations relating to the performance of those functions which immediately before the date of the coming into operation of this Act were the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the body or person from which the functions are transferred shall on that date be transferred to and vest in the local authority or, as the case may be, the local authorities to which the functions have been transferred, and the provisions of Schedule (Transfer of assets and liabilities) shall have effect for the purposes of this section.")—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I was slightly puzzled by this Amendment when I first read it, and even more puzzled when the noble Lord acquiesced in Amendment No. 1, because it seems to me they might be read to cover the same point. I do not quite understand why this Amendment would not cover the case of functions transferred by one local authority to another local authority; that is, the case of large burghs whose functions would be transferred to counties.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it is perhaps merely for the avoidance of doubt.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord acquiesces that it is for the avoidance of doubt.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment is proposed for the purpose of removing any doubt about the position of certain officers of local authorities who transfer from one superannuation scheme to another as a result of the provisions of the Bill. It has to be clear not only that the provisions of one superannuation scheme can be extended to an officer transferring to another scheme but also that the Secretary of State has powers at the same time to amend the second scheme so that it is deemed to contain such provisions as are necessary to give effect to the extensions proposed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 29, at end add ("or for modifying in respect of such officers, as may be so specified, the provisions of the said Acts or any such scheme.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87 [Duty of parents to notify change of address]:

6.30 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

This is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is unnecessary, as only persons under paragraphs (a) and (b) would have orders or decrees made in respect of them under Part VI. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 40, leave out from ("requirement;") to end of line 44.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, subsection (2) has been redrafted to ensure that it covers all the children under subsection (1). The references to children transferred in line 5 are wrongly restrictive. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 52, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) The parent of a child to whom the foregoing subsection relates and who knowingly fails to comply with the requirements of that subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of ten pounds; but in any proceedings under this section it shall be a defence that the accused is residing at the same address as the other parent and had reasonable cause to believe that the other parent kept the person responsible for the supervision or the care of the child informed of the address of both parents.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Interpretation]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment is the result of an assurance which I gave in Committee about the definition of "establishment". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 4, at end insert ("not being premises controlled or managed by a Government department,").—(Lord Hughes)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 96 [Extension of certain provisions of Act to England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment extends certain provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 12, after ("Ireland") insert ("that is to say—

(3) The following provisions of this Act shall extend to".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Amendment of Part IV of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The word "maintained" is an error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 26, leave out ("maintained") and insert ("detained").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment makes the new Section 43 more like the existing Section 43 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act by providing that when a child is to be brought before a court the local authority which is to be notified, and which has to provide reports and so on, shall be the local authority of the area in which the court will sit and not of the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. We have come to the conclusion that this is a more convenient arrangement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 39, leave out from ("the area") to the end of line 41 and insert ("in which the court will sit").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved, after paragraph 6, to insert: () For section 50 there shall be substituted the following section— Child charged jointly with person who is not a child. When a child has been charged with an offence jointly with a person person who is not a child the provisions of sections 52 to 54 of this Act shall not apply to summary proceedings before the sheriff in respect of the charges.

() In section 52(1), for the words from the beginning to the words "a juvenile court", second occurring, there shall be substituted the words— Where summary proceedings are brought in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a child the sheriff shall sit either in a different building or room from that in which he usually sits or on different days from these on which other courts in the building are engaged in criminal proceedings; and no person shall be present at any sitting to which this subsection applies".

() For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection— (2) The power to make rules conferred on the High Court of Justiciary under section 76(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 shall include power to make rules as respects the procedure in cases to which the foregoing subsection applies.

() In section 53(5), for the words from the beginning to the words "juvenile court", there shall be substituted the words "Any direction in any enactment that a charge shall be brought before a juvenile court shall be construed as a direction that he shall be brought before the sheriff sitting as a court of summary jurisdiction, and no such direction "."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments to Sections 50 and 52(1) and (3) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 are designed to ensure that a child who appears before a criminal court after the coming into operation of the Bill shall be entitled to no lees protection than he has now by virtue of the existing provisions of these sections. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 14, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved to add to paragraph 7: . In section 57(2), for the words from the beginning to "harm" there shall be substituted the words "Where a child is convicted on indictment".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to widen somewhat the power in Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 to enable serious offences by children to be appropriately dealt with by the sheriff or by the High Court. At present, Section 57(2) provides that if a child or young person is convicted on an indictment of attempted murder, culpable homicide, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the court feels that none of the other ways in which the case may be legally dealt with is suitable, then the court may sentence the offender to be detained for a specified period. The Amendment enables a court to pass this type of sentence in any case of conviction on indictment, and not just in a conviction for one of the offences previously mentioned. We think that if the decision has been taken that the offence is of a sufficiently serious nature to have brought about the position that it should be on indictment this is a reasonable basis on which these penalties should apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 I will move together. These two Amendments are designed to retain, for one purpose only, the existing power, contained in Section 58 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, of a court to impose short terms of detention. It is felt to be necessary to keep this power of detention as a deterrent and as an ultimate sanction when a child will not pay fines, damages or expenses which may be imposed on him by the court. It is not a power that is often used, and in future it may be used even less; but we think that it is a deterrent which can usefully be retained. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 25, after ("58") insert ("the words from the beginning to "imprisonment or" shall be omitted and").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 69.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 27, leave out from ("the period") to the end of paragraph 8 and insert (", not exceeding one month, as may be specified in the order in a place chosen by a local authority in whose area the court is situated.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Appeal Tribunals]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

This Amendment concerns a minor point. The Bill refers to the "representation of one person in any proceedings by another person by another person." Whether the gramophone record has got stuck or there has been some other mistake, I do not know. But if this is not intended, the wording, I feel, ought to be changed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 26, leave out ("by another person") where secondly occurring.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords. I beg to move the new Schedule after Schedule 4.

Amendment moved— After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—

Forward to