38. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Secretary for Scotland's attention has been called to the conviction of a child of eight years in the Northern Police Court, Glasgow, for begging on Christmas Day; whether he is aware that the police gave evidence that the father was a decent hardworking man, earning 22s. a week, on which he had to support a wife and eight children, and that the school board officer gave evidence that the child had made very good attendances at school, but the master's report was that lie seemed ill-nourished and sleepy in class; whether he is aware that the magistrate sentenced the child to be sent for eight years to an industrial school; whether he has communicated with the magistrate as to his reasons for imposing such a sentence; and whether he will institute inquiries as to the conditions under which this and other families with incomes of less than 22s. a week are living in Glasgow?
Mr. McKINNON WOODPerhaps the House will allow me to answer the question rather fully, as there has been considerable misapprehension about this case, which has been represented as one of a brutal sentence passed upon a mere child for a trivial offence. This is not a case of punishment at all. The magistrate acted under Section 58 of the Children Act, an Act which was passed, not for the punishment of little children, but to save them from the consequences of neglect. As the result of his inquiry, he came to the conclusion that it would be to the interest of the child that he should be fed, clothed, educated and taught a trade in an industrial school. I understand that my hon. Friend does not dissent from the magistrate's decision. The order of the magistrate places the child, who is nine and a half years of age, in a school until he is sixteen, but under Section 67 of the Children Act there is power by licence to permit the child "to live with any trustworthy and respectable person named in the licence willing to receive and take charge of him." From the information supplied to me by the assessor and clerk of Court, on behalf of the magistrate, I am satisfied that this was a proper case for applying the benefits of this Act. It was proved that the child was neglected, poorly clad, ill fed, was allowed habitually to wander through the streets late at night begging, and was in danger of growing up a mere street arab. It appears 1172 to me that he is just the type of child for whose benefit and reclamation industrial schools are maintained. As to the concluding part of the question, I fear I cannot in my reply deal with the vast subject raised. I hope that valuable results may ensue from the inquiries of the Royal Commission on Housing now sitting, but I fear a new inquiry would not be of much assistance. The facts of the problem of low wages are only too familiar.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTDoes the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that my concern is with the fate of the family of nine persons who are left behind, living on an income of 22s. a week and not having the benefit of the beneficent provisions of this Statute? If I address a question to the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman submit the facts to him in order that the Prime Minister may see whether he can appoint a Commission to inquire into the conditions under which families with small incomes live?
Mr. McKINNON WOODCertainly, I will be pleased to do so, but of course under the Children Act this child was taken up not for begging, though begging was the occasion of the order of the magistrate.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWill the other children have to go on the street to get the benefit of the Act?
§ Mr. JOHN WARDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police officer gave a report to the effect that this child's attendance at school had been fairly satisfactory, and that the house and family were quite respectable; and are we to understand that owing to the poverty of families in Scotland parents are liable to have their children taken away from them by process of law for a period of eight years merely because they are poor?
Mr. McKINNON WOODNo, Sir, that is not the reason. It is not merely because the child is poor, but because the child is neglected and is in peril of growing up as a danger to society. With regard to the question of the child's school attendance, it was very good, but the master reported that the child was very ill-educated, was very backward, and that he came to school sleepy and tired, which was to be expected from the way in which he spent his nights in the streets. I would request my hon. 1173 Friends not to ask me to discuss the facts about the parents.
§ Sir W. BYLESAs a much more favourable colour has been put upon this case by the long answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether the parents or the father were consulted and acquiesced in the course taken?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI am not able to answer that, nor is that necessary; but I would say that the essential point that I have given at greater length today was stated with perfect clearness in my answer yesterday.
§ Mr. HUNTCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether a child can be taken away from its parents without any sort of consent from them?
§ Sir H. CRAIKWhat is the object of the party behind the right hon. Gentleman passing the Children Act and then objecting when it is put in force?