HL Deb 13 October 1969 vol 304 cc1245-53

4.3 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the House gave it a general and warm welcome. Of course we had our points of difference subsequently, and one of these concerned a crucial issue which was the subject of a particular Amendment, which no doubt we shall return to at a later stage. But I think it is fair to say that there has been wide support in this House for nearly all the provisions of the Bill, and total support for its broad aims.

Some of our most important discussions have been concerned with the situation of children and young people, particularly adolescents, who have such serious behavioural problems that they require special care and treatment in a carefully controlled setting. Parliament, rightly, has been vigilant to ensure that there are proper safeguards for these children, and our discussions have had an important outcome in the provision of a "visitor". Of course, most of the children with whom we are concerned will not be in a secure establishment, but a relatively small number have to be kept in conditions of security while an attempt is made to provide the treatment they need. Paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (2) of Clause 43 will enable my right honourable friend to make regulations providing special safeguards in these cases. In view of the very close interest which the House has taken in this aspect of the Bill I thought it might be useful to summarise what it is intended to provide in the regulations that are to be made under these powers. At the outset I should like to make it clear that I am talking only of those children and young people in the care of local authorities under a court order; there will be no special provisions to allow restrictions on the liberty of children who are received into care voluntarily and at the request of their parents.

The regulations which are to be made by my right honourable friend will provide that no part of any community home may be used for the purposes of restricting liberty, beyond the extent, of course, of normal parental powers, unless expressly approved for this purpose by the Home Secretary. In this way my right honourable friend will control both the extent to which secure accommodation is provided in different parts of the country and the actual condition:; in the accommodation itself including, for example, the arrangements for staff supervision.

The procedures for admission to this secure accommodation will be carefully graded according to the length of stay considered necessary. We have to cater for a wide variety of situations ranging from a sudden but, we hope, temporary outburst to a need for long-term treatment and care in a secure situation. I would stress that this accommodation will not be available for punishment. The regulations will thus permit the person in charge of the home to admit a child for up to 24 hours, as a short cooling-off measure. If a longer period is necessary the managers of the home (or the local authority in the case of a local authority home which has no managing body) will have to authorise any further period in the secure accommodation, but this authorisation will not last beyond 14 days at most. Should the assessment of the child's needs be that he should remain for a period longer than 14 days, the express consent in writing of the local authority to whose care the child has been committed would be required, and this written authority would not last for more than three months at a time.

The regulations will also set out the special review procedures, involving the participation of at least one completely independent person. The committee undertaking these reviews will consider all proposals to extend a written consent by the local authority for a child to be kept in secure accommodation; that is, each consent will be reviewed not less than every three months. On each occasion all the circumstances will be fully examined before deciding whether or not the child must be kept for a further period in such accommodation. My right honourable friend will be discussing with the local authority associations just how this review machinery is to be set up, and in particular whether there should be one review committee for each local authority, or whether, in those cases which exist in certain parts of the country, where several authorities share in the use of a home with secure accommodation, there should be one committee for that home including representatives of each contributing authority. The inspectorate of the Children's Department—and all of us who know that inspectorate have the highest regard for its professional skills and quality—will watch the working of the review committees to ensure that there is no question of their becoming "rubber stamps".

My Lords, I have explained the proposed content of these regulations in some detail as the House has regarded this as one of the most important issues raised by the Bill. However, I do not wish to minimise in any way the importance of all the other provisions, and in particular of those relating to the work of the juvenile courts and of all the services concerned with children who are in trouble, but not in residential care. What we are doing in this Bill is to re-write the basic framework of law within which these services perform their functions. In doing so, we are re-emphasising the constructive aspects of their work while recognising the need to provide control as well as help for children according to their individual needs. We are also, rightly, removing some of the more rigid and inhibiting features of the present law while preserving intact the essential judicial safeguards for the rights of the children and of their parents. I hope and believe that we have devised a flexible framework which will be capable of great development and will serve for a considerable span of years. But at the end of the day I know that all noble Lords will agree that this will depend, as it always does, on the individual people who deal with the individual children.

Whatever arguments we have had about particular aspects of the Bill, I am confident that we would all stress the need for a harmonious working partnership between all those in the statutory and voluntary field who have a part to play in implementing the different sections of this Bill. It is they who have the difficult job of tackling individual and social problems to which no society has yet found a complete answer. The Bill is based on the principle that we should support the men and women who actually do the job, who actually have the day-to-day contact with the children and their families and all their problems. This Bill, as I see it, is an enabling measure in the best sense of that term, in that it is designed to enable them to do a better job; that is, to meet the needs of individual children more effectively. It is for this purpose that the Bill emphasises the need for more flexible arrangements, for the effective use of resources, and for full judicial safeguards.

Society must surely ensure that the necessary care and control are provided for children who are in trouble, both in the child's interest and in its own interest. The Bill is therefore based on the fundamental recognition that these two interests are not separate and that they can both best be met by dealing with the child within his own family and within the community wherever possible, with the help of the normal services available to all children and all families, and avoiding the separation and isolation of the difficult or delinquent child. This is a Bill for children, and I think it is right that we should end our long debates on its various provisions with our attention focused firmly on this essential objective.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Serota.)

4.12 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, during our Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, claimed that this Bill was part of the historical process of making the law about children more humane, juster, and more effective".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/6/69; col. 1128.] We have, as we have made dear at the various stages of the Bill, entertained, and in certain cases we still do entertain, doubts about the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord's claim will be justified by events so far as this Bill is concerned, warts and all, although I think it would have been even more justified if we had been able to remove rather more of the warts. I only wish that the noble Lord in making this claim had been able to add that it made the law about children and young persons less complicated. I think we are at one in this House in urging future Governments to tidy up and simplify and consolidate the law here. It is realty appallingly complicated, at least to the layman like myself.

This Bill deals, of course, with cure rather than prevention, and this should not blind us to the fact that here, as elsewhere, prevention is more important than cure. There was a Clause 1 of the 1963 Act, which is important here, but I think even more important is the action which could flow from Seebohm. During our Second Reading debate the noble Baroness said: … we will make every possible effort to make a statement as soon as is humanly possible … "—[Official Report, 19/6/69; col. 1209.] about the Government's views on the Seebohm Report. I listened with rapt attention to her speech to learn whether it has yet been possible for this human and fallible Government to achieve the humanly possible. It would seem that the miracle is still to be awaited, and I hope the noble Baroness will soon be able to enlighten us as to when we may expect the Seebohm Tablets to be handed down from on high.

When this Bill was before us earlier I expressed the hope that we should be able, as we conventionally do, to say on Second Reading that the Bill would leave your Lordships' House better than when it came to us. I think that, by and large, this has been the case. The Government have introduced some Amendments to meet undertakings given in another place and to meet some of the administrative and technical points which have been made from this side of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, by the noble Baroness who sits beside him on our Front Bench, and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. But I regret that in some respects the Government have not shown themselves a bit more flexible. I regret the fact that they were not able to meet the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Colville, and indeed by myself, in favour of giving the courts rather more latitude, for example, in invoking the aid of the Probation Service in the case of a child under 14 where the Service was already involved with the family and where the local authority have no objection.

I wish again we had succeeded in persuading the Government that they were wrong to make it possible for the supervisor entirely to ignore the supervision order of a court. It is a small point, but it shows how obdurate and inflexible all Governments can become. I am sad that we were not able to persuade them to treat the co-opted members of regional planning committees rather better, at least in this legislation. Apparently some people prefer them to be deaf, dumb or absent.

That said, I think it would be churlish of me not to recognise that in two important respects this Bill has been materially improved in its passage through your Lordships' House. I think that Clause 1 is better. I believe the Government were absolutely right to introduce the new paragraph (b) of subsection (2) to deal with what are termed the "battered baby" cases. Likewise, I hola, although I grant that this is perhaps more debatable ground, that this clause has been materially improved as a result of the vote of your Lordships' House in Committee by the elimination of the so-called double test. But that of course was not the Government's doing, and they have made it clear that they will seek to reverse in another place the judgment of your Lordships' House, a judgment in which a number of noble Lords opposite happened to concur. Secondly, there is the additional safeguard now to be found in subsection (5) of Clause 24 which we discussed just now when we were dealing with the Amendments. The Bill introduces a more flexible form of treatment, but this of course increases the responsibilities placed upon the local authorities. I was glad the noble Baroness gave us some further inkling of what is in the Government's mind here as regards the regulations to be introduced.

In any event, your Lordships do not need reminding that we argued long at the earlier stages of the Bill whether the safeguards for young children in care were adequate. We did not get all we asked for from this side of the House, but I think we have obtained something quite substantial from the Government, namely, the provision for a visitor to be appointed to stand in the position of parent or guardian for the child who is in a closed establishment and who is neglected by his parent or guardian. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may have had something to do with the introduction of this new piece of machinery, and, ifso, it is typical of the care with which he always addressed himself to points made in debates in your Lordships' House, from wherever they came. I only regret, as I said, that this machinery is not going to be extended to the more open establishments, as we pressed for from this side and as indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, also advocated. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, did not cover this point rather more fully when she was dealing with the Amendments at Third Reading.

I have only this to say in conclusion. I suspect that we may not have entirely done with this particular Bill; but, be that as it may, it would be wrong if we were to delude ourselves that in this troubled, mobile and constantly changing society we can afford in this area to rest on our laurels or on legislation alone. Laws may help, but clearly they are not enough. And here I would associate myself entirely with what the noble Baroness has said. There is need for the closest possible co-operation between the statutory authorities and the professionals, and the voluntary organisations and the volunteers; and there is a great pool of voluntary effort here still untapped, waiting to be tapped. The particular field with which this Bill deals is, above all, a field where all hands, whether they be statutory or professional or voluntary, are required to be put to the community pump and kept there. That said, I should like to wish this Bill well when it becomes legislation.

4.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friends on the Front Bench, and in particular Lord Stonham, my valued friend of many years, for having put this Bill before this House and carried it so far. I wish to thank him for a number of reasons. To begin with, I think that it represents a most valuable revolution in the way we treat children. For that reason alone I would give this Bill my most hearty welcome. I am myself a bit of a revolutionary—I only hope that my noble friends do not at times find me too revolting. I wish to thank them also for educating me. I have learned a lot in the course of listening to the proceedings on this Bill as it went through this House. I only hope that all noble Lords have learned as much as I have. I am not too sure about that, but I personally, as I say, have learned a lot.

I believe that this Bill will do a great deal of good. I see two large fields where we shall need to do a great deal of practical work if we are to put this Bill to its best possible use. One is the bricks and mortar side. We have a large number of establishments operated by different people for many different purposes which are not necessarily in line with the types of establishment, or number of establishments, or the number of places that we need. There is much practical work to be done in this connection. I am thankful that that particular field falls outside my own activities.

But one field in this work does fall within my own activities and, as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, it concerns those who work in all possible ways with children, both the professionals (I suppose that I am now one of those) and the volunteers. In this field, a great deal of co-operation is needed, but in my opinion it is not now taking place. Here I am pointing a finger at myself, at my own lapse in this field, as well as at other people. It is quite clear that all of us who have anything to do with children, whether in their school time, in their leisure time, or anywhere else, have to get together, to pool our information, so that we have some sort of basis for knowing, and knowing it at the earliest possible moment, whom we ought to be serving.

I still feel that this Bill is lacking, in that there is not in some ways power to collect information about the children as well as it should be collected or as early as it could be collected. That may need to be put right at some later date. But it is quite clear to me that if, under this Bill, we are to do our best for children all of us who do anything whatever in regard to them must put our heads together as soon as we can in regard to each individual child, so that as soon as possible we can use this Bill to cure the situation which has arisen and help children in general.

Those are two fields where I think that those of us dealing with children have now to step in. roll up our sleeves and put in the heavy work. This Bill gives us power to start that work. It may be that we shall need a further Bill of the same type to deal with this matter further at a later date.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.