HC Deb 01 July 1918 vol 107 cc1412-37

(1) The local education authority, if they are satisfied by a report of the school medical officer or otherwise that any child is being employed in such a manner as to be prejudicial to his health or physical development, or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school, may either prohibit, or attach such conditions as they think fit to, his employment in that or any other manner, notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment.

(2) It shall be the duty of the employer and the parent of any child who is in employment, if required by the local education authority, to furnish to the authority such information as to his employment as the authority may require, and, if the parent or employer fails to comply with any requirement of the local education authority or wilfully gives false information as to the employment, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.

Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "child," to insert the words "or young persons."

The object of this Amendment is to extend to young persons the benefits which this Clause provides for children. It is desirable, I submit, that the education authorities shall have this power. Why, I ask, should we in this matter stop short at children? Why not extend these benefits to young persons; why not extend them to boys and girls of fourteen years of age and upwards who are just entering upon employment? That is a time when the intervention of the local education authority is really more requisite than it is for the children. It is well to bear in mind that factory hours are very long—sixty-five per week—and some of the processes in which these young people are engaged are very trying to their health. Moreover, there are a large majority of the children who, not working in factories or workshops, do not get the benefit of the services of the certifying surgeon. They are engaged in occupations in which there is no legal limit as to hours. No doubt hon. Members will remember that the Boy Labour Committee had evidence before it showing that children were employed on land and in shops for something like eighty hours per week. That sort of thing is absolutely wrong, and it would in my opinion be a good thing for the local education authority to have power to intervene on their behalf. Money will in future be spent on young persons from an educational point of view, and there are very strong arguments indeed for seeing that the money we are spending on these young persons is not wasted by reason of the long hours they may be compelled to work in, it may be, unhealthy occupations.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher)

While I am quite prepared to believe that some further regulation of the hours of employment of young persons would be desirable, I am unable to accept the Noble Lord's Amendment. Clause 15 provides that the local education authority, if it has evidence that the health of a child is being prejudiced by employment, shall have power to prohibit such employment or to attach conditions to it. The Amendment proposes to extend this provision to young persons. Such a course is hardly compatible with the provisions of Clause 10, which has been already assented to by the Committee. Sub-section (5) of Clause 10 provides that the local education authority may require that a young person shall be exempt from employment not only during the hours of the continuation schools, but also for a further period not exceeding two hours on any day. If the Noble Lord's Amendment were accepted the local education authority might insist that a young person should be exempted from employment not only for two hours, but altogether, or, at any rate, for a very much longer period, and the possibility of so drastic and so uncertain an interference with the hours of industrial employment would, I feel, be resented not only by the employers, but also by the young persons themselves. For that reason the Government is unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY

Before this Clause is added to the Bill I should like to say a few words on it. I am extremely glad that the President of the Board of Education did not accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord, which would have the effect of allowing the education authorities to prescribe the amount of work, if any, which a young person up to the age of eighteen should be allowed to perform. May I point out to the Committee that a person of that age is supposed to be worth 30s. a week, and if they were to be taken away from earnings of that character and ordered about by the Board of Education as to what work they should or should not do, it would be absurd? I object to this Clause altogether. First of all it is contradictory. I am not at all sure it is in order. Clause 10 prescribes that under certain conditions which are laid down the local education authority can do certain things. They can prohibit the employment of children under certain conditions. This Clause goes further. It contradicts Clause 10, because it says that the local education authority may either prohibit or attach such conditions as they think fit to the employment of the child in this or in any other manner notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act. Therefore, the effect of this Clause nullifies the previous Clause, because after the Committee have already decided that certain conditions should apply, this Clause comes along which says that the previous conditions shall be rendered nugatory if the local education authority think it is right. Therefore in this Clause we are overruling the decision already come to in Clause 10, and on a point of Order I submit that this Clause is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN

This Clause deals with a child who is under fourteen. Clause 10 deals with a young person—that is, with persons over that age. Therefore there is no contradiction.

Sir F. BANBURY

Perhaps that is quite true, but there are other Clauses which we have passed which deal with the employment of children under fourteen.

Mr. FISHER

Clause 13.

Sir F. BANBURY

Clause 13 lays down the method under which a child under the age of fourteen shall be employed. It is stipulated that such child shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day, before six in the morning or after eight in the evening. Under that Clause the child can only be employed under those conditions. Clause 15 interferes with that and renders all the conditions nugatory. Therefore, I submit that Clause 15 is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN

Still I am against the right hon. Baronet. Clause 13, which we have passed, says that certain children shall not be employed at all. The present Clause says that if certain children, other than children dealt with under Clause 13, are engaged in employment of a prejudicial character, the local education authority may take certain steps. Therefore, the Clauses are complementary and not contradictory.

Sir F. BANBURY

The first Sub-section of Clause 13 does not say that a child shall not be employed at all. It says shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day, before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening. That is to say, he may be employed on Saturday between six and eight and on days on which the school does not meet. He can also be employed even on days on which he is required to attend school, provided he is not employed before the close of school hours on that day. Therefore, if the school closes at four o'clock he can be employed, say, between six and seven. If he is so employed, which we have authorised, Clause 15 says that he shall not be so employed. That that is contemplated is clear from the words notwithstanding that the employment may be authorised under the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment. Those words must have some meaning, and the meaning is surely this, that under this Clause the local education authority have power to prevent a child being employed if they think right, although a previous Clause gives power for the child to be employed. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I submit that it is not in order at the present moment, because we have already passed Clause 13, which provides that in certain circumstances children may be employed during certain hours.

The CHAIRMAN

This is an additional provision.

Sir F. BANBURY

If that is your ruling, then I suppose I am wrong. However, I object to the Clause altogether, because I object to the local education authority setting itself up to decide whether or not certain children are to do certain things. If it is necessary that the children should not be employed at all, then Parliament should lay down rules and regulations for that purpose. As it is, there is no appeal. All that is requisite is a report of the school medical officer "or otherwise." It looks as if the school medical officer can merely make a report that in his opinion the health of the child was injured by certain employment, and that report would be submitted to the local education authority for them to deal with it. I submit that the local education authority are not the proper people to whom that report should be submitted. If it is to be submitted it should be submitted to the magistrates, who are an independent authority, and who could be trusted to weigh the evidence and give a proper decision. The local education authority by the very fact that they are the education authority are prejudiced. Their desire would be to keep the child at school, and the consequence would be that they would support the report of their own official. It must be remembered that it is not the report of an ordinary doctor, but of a school medical officer. Therefore, if the parent of a child objects, all that he can do is to appeal from the official who has made the report to the official's employer. We all know how departments, especially Departments of State, are prone to support their own officials when their decision is called into question, and the local education authority will be biassed in favour of their own official. What is meant by the words "or otherwise"? Does it mean that a school medical officer may make a report or that if the local education authority consider it right the hon. and gallant and learned Member opposite (Major Hills), who is very much interested in this subject, may make a report that in his opinion the health of a child is being injured by employment during school hours? Would he come under the term "or otherwise"? This is an important point.

Major HILLS

The words are sui generis.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have heard the question asked why Acts of Parliament were made so incomprehensible and the reply has been, because lawyers could not exist if they were made clear. We ought to have Acts of Parliament made clear, and the words put in such a way that they can be understood by the people. The fathers and mothers of the children will have to interpret these words. It might be held that anybody could make a report under these words "or otherwise." Would it be possible for a schoolmaster or a schoolmistress to make a report to the local education authority that in their opinion a certain child has suffered in health through their employment?

Mr. FISHER

That is so. It would be possible.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then, if that is the case, it makes this Clause much worse than I thought it was. Surely it cannot be right that a schoolmaster or schoolmistress shall have the power of saying in face of previous Clauses which we have passed that a certain child shall not be employed because in his or her opinion it would be injured.

Mr. FISHER

A schoolmaster can make a report to the local education authority, but the local education authority must be satisfied.

Sir F. BANBURY

We have gone a long way in the direction of establishing official authority over the life and limb of the subject, but I did not suppose that we had gone so far as to say that the local schoolmaster or schoolmistress has merely to say, "John Jones, you are not to do any work." I knew that there was the formality of appealing to the local education authority, but it is more than likely that the local authority would support their own official. In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will not consent to add this Clause to the Bill. There are already sufficient Clauses in the Bill dealing with employment, and if this Clause is left out, and if it should appear on Report stage that some further provisions are necessary, it will be possible to insert a new Clause not so drastic and more easily understandable.

Mr. FISHER

Clause 15 is distinguished from Clause 13 in this way: Clause 13 applies to children generally, and Clause 15 applies to the individual child. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when Clause 13 was under discussion I was pressed very strongly from many quarters to regulate or restrict to a further degree child labour on Saturdays and Sundays. I gave a pledge to the Committee that I would examine the matter further, and if I were in a position to make a practicable recommendation on Report stage I would do so. Meanwhile Clause 15 has been specially drafted to meet the difficulty raised by Saturday and Sunday employment. Assuming that it is impossible or impracticable to regulate in this Bill child labour on Saturday or Sunday, we provide by Clause 15 that a local education authority, if satisfied that the individual child is unable to obtain proper benefit from school through excessive or improper employment, shall be able to limit or regulate that employment. That is a very modest, limited step, but one which I think will command the general assent of the Committee. I have, in fact, in my fond moments hoped that this was a Clause which would meet with the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Baronet, not perhaps in his quality as a philanthropist, but as an economist. Surely he will realise that it is the worst posible form of economy to spend great sums of money on elementary education while taking no steps to secure that the child benefits from the education which the taxpayers and the ratepayers pay for!

Major HILLS

In reference to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet, I think it is clear that the words "or otherwise" must depend on the report of a school medical officer, the reason being that the report has got to be on the health or general development of the child. Unless that is shown to suffer the local education authority can take no action. I also desire to point out that, in my opinion, this Clause does not go far enough. I do not believe that you will get a satisfactory Bill from the education standpoint alone until you lay down a comprehensive limit of hours of employment and of school labour. Under the Clause, as I read it, I the decision is left to the school medical officer and the local education authority, and on that you are bound to get very divergent practice. I do not ask for a very high standard. I think that there must be a certain amount of flexibility, but I do think that there ought to be a maximum number of hours per week which the child shall spend in employment.

The CHAIRMAN

This matter was debated, as far as young persons are concerned, on Clause 10, and we must not go back to that point on this Clause.

Major HILLS

I do point out to my right hon. Friend that this Clause is really limited in scope, and that the education authority can only take action when actual injury to health and physical development is proved, and though a child might be employed in a way which exhausted its mental powers, and thereby prevented that child from receiving the full benefit of its education, the education authority can take no action until it proves that the child's health or physical development is injured by that employment.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to read on— or to render him unfit to obtain the proper benefit from his education at school. That is another condition as to which the schoolmaster can give a decision, and be is the sole authority on that point.

Major HILLS

There, again, I think that the words are read in the sense of the preceding words.

Mr. DENNISS

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President as to the necessity for this Clause. I only rise for the purpose of having it made clear to us, if possible, by an amended Clause on the Report stage, if the right hon. Gentleman's intention is really to be carried out. I happen to have been construing Acts of Parliament pretty frequently in the course of the last forty years, and this does not carry out the intention of my right hon. Friend, because even on the point of employment rendering the child unfit to obtain benefit from education, the whole Clause seems limited to something prejudicial to health or physical development, which can only be certified upon by a medical man, so that a medical report is a condition precedent. That seems to me to exclude altogether the idea that the teacher, or any third person, can make a report on which the local authority would be justified in acting. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means the Clause is sufficient, but if not it should be amended on Report, and perhaps he can carry it a little further.

Mr. BIGLAND

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for calling our attention to the Clause, because these words "or otherwise" do certainly need enlargement or removal. The position of parental authority should in some way be rectified. Fathers and mothers resent the fact that somebody or other comes to them and says, "This child is not able to receive full value from its education." That is a very disputable point, and when fathers and mothers are hard put to find the necessary means to carry on their home, and a child is earning 10s. or 15s. a week by working two or three hours in the evening, I think that the question of parental control should be considered by the President, and that we are justified in asking him in some way to amend or alter these words "or otherwise" on the final stage of the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) has come into the House. He is a great authority on these legal points. We have had two authorities on the other side who have expressed the opinion that "or otherwise" means some medical authority. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the concrete case whether these words would not include the schoolmaster or the schoolmistress, and the right hon. Gentleman said that they would. Unfortunately we have no Law Officers of the Crown present. I do not know why they are not here for the discussion of a Bill upon which complicated legal questions arise. In a matter of this sort we should know where we are. I am surprised that there are no Members of the Labour party here when we are discussing a matter affecting not only the welfare of the child, but of the parents, who are to be subjected to all sorts of inquisitions.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

There is a Member of the Labour party.

Sir F. BANBURY

There is only one (Mr. Snowden), and he has concealed himself at the end of the House, but I would like to have his opinion upon this matter. As I interpret the words, they mean that if a child has done a little work the previous evening, and is somewhat tired the following morning—a matter which has nothing to do with health—the teacher may make a report to the local authority, and say that the child must not be employed. I may call attention to Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Our lives are being made sufficient of a burden to us every day by the number of forms which we have to fill up, and the number of officials who come round asking what we are doing and whether we ought not to be doing something else, without having more of them put upon the wretched people of this country. Sub-section (2) says: It shall be the duty of the employer, and the parent of any child who is in employment, if required by the local education authority, to furnish to the authority such information as to its employment as the authority may inquire. That means that the employer or the father of the child would be worried continually to fill up some horrible form to say what actually the child is doing. My experience is that forms are always drawn in such a way that they cannot possibly be filled up truthfully, because these forms are drawn up under the impression that everybody is in exactly the same position, whereas, as a matter of fact, various circumstances are always arising. Jones may fill up the form correctly, and Brown, who is in a different position from Jones, does not, or cannot, fill it up in the same way, and Brown is asked why he cannot say "Yes" or "No," or whatever the answer may be, to some particular question in the form. Citizens have been unfortunately asked to fill up all kinds of forms, and they have not always been able to satisfy the officials recently or more previously appointed, and that parents of the children will be very much in the same position in regard to this form required by the local education authority. That authority may be a very good one, but it was never intended that it should have power over the proceedings of subjects in this kind of way or that it should go to the employer and ask how he employs people. Are the liberties of Englishmen to be abolished altogether, and are we to go back to the old days when no man knew whether he was to be alive the next day or not? The latter part of Sub-section (2) says— and, if the parent or employer fails to comply with any requirement of the local education authority, or wilfully gives false information as to the employment, he should be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 40s. I say all that is entirely wrong. The only member of the Labour party who was present I see has just left the House, which shows the interest the Labour party take in the working man and the liberties and rights of the British citizen. After all, there is no greater tyranny than the tyranny of the bureaucracy. It is far greater than the tyranny of any emperor or any monarch; and every single Bill that we are passing now gives fresh power to some bureaucrat or to some official. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is present. He is very sound on all these matters, and I hope we shall have his view upon this Clause. If anybody will divide with me against the Clause, I am prepared to go to a Division.

Mr. FISHER

I should be very glad to look into the point raised by the right hon. Baronet, although I have faith in the Clause as it stands.

Question put, and agreed to.