CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of Attendance at Continuation Schools.) (Hansard, 15 July 1918)

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "he," and to insert instead thereof the words "his parent."
My Amendment is twofold, and I do not know whether I shall be in order, but I think I ought to deal with the development of the first Amendment by an explanatory reference to what consequentially follows. If that be accepted, I propose, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "if the parent declares that the young person against whom a complaint is made of failing to attend a continuation school is beyond his control, the young person shall himself be liable to the penalty provided in this case." 809 I referred to this matter in Committee when we were dealing with it in the middle of June, and I asked the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education to the matter. He was good enough to express himself as sympathetic with the objects I had in view, which are neither less nor more than to stiffen and strengthen parental control and responsibility. All through the Bill there has been a lessening of the old respectable doctrine of parental responsibility. The last Amendment we passed, a very wise and useful Amendment, of itself had that same effect, because while I should have liked an Amendment to give the parent the opportunity of withdrawing a child put into that Clause, it was referred to only as the act of the young person.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
Oh, no, of the parents also!

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I thank my hon. Friend. I should have expected that, conscious as I am of the extreme sagacity of the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are in charge of the Bill. I would refer the House to occasions wherein there has been such action, placing upon the child too much control of his or her own actions under this Bill, but I do not want to lengthen out the arguments in favour of what I have proposed. I think such an action is a backward action, and that it has an undesirable tendency, and I want the House to insist that the first appeal or complaint shall be made as against the parent, that his authority over the young person shall be recognised as the primary one, but that if he is able or if he likes to come up and state—and, of course, "a parent" there is understood as being "or guardian"—that the young person is beyond his control, and in all probability it might be found to include that the young person is beyond his control because beyond his immediate neighbourhood, having gone to a distance and made his own establishment, being employed in work that keeps him at a distance—if the parent is able to urge that, he should be relieved of the responsibility, and it would at once fall on the young person, who would naturally have justified the conviction in the minds of everybody that he, having taken his own life under his own control, might therewith not only take the control of his liberties, but also of his responsibilities. I understand there is to be some concession, 810 and if it is in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend it will be a very considerable concession, indeed.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I beg, formally, to second the Amendment.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith)
My hon. Friend has stated his general objects very clearly, and the Government is not altogether out of sympathy with what I conceive to be his main object. My hon. Friend is desirous of establishing that the first lability shall be upon the parent, and the second liability shall be upon the child. Surely the answer must be that the question on whom the primary liability should rest depends very largely on the age of the young person. That has been the guiding principle in our minds, and anyone who gives attention to it must, I think, concede that that is the only sound principle. If the young person is sixteen years of age, or is living away from home, it seems to me it would be extremely unreasonable that the parents should be responsible for his failure to attend the continuation school. On the other hand, it is reasonable that a parent should see that a child of fourteen or fifteen should go to a continuation school. That, I think, is the true distinction. My hon. Friend's point is met, I think, under the existing law. The House may recollect the effect of Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908. That Section provides that, where a child or young person is charged with an offence the Court shall, if the offender is a child or a young person, order that the penalties shall be paid by the parent instead of by the child or young person, unless the Court is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found, or that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person. I propose, if I am not out of order, and if it meet my hon. Friend's view, to move an Amendment to Sub-section (2), which will have the effect of expressly calling the attention of the Court which deals with the matter to Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908, by inserting the words unless an Order has been made against him in respect of such failure under Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908. The effect of that will be that, if any young person under sixteen does not attend the continuation school, the authority may proceed either against the 811 young person or parent. If they do proceed against the young person, the Court shall order the penalty to be paid by the parent if not convinced that the parent exercised due care; or, on the other hand, they may proceed direct against the parent, who is then liable to the penalties I have mentioned under the Act. Finally, if the young person is over sixteen, he is not a young person for the purposes of the Children Act, and the Court cannot impose a fine on the parent. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that this is reasonable, because it will be only in very exceptional cases that the failures of a young person over sixteen to attend the continuation school will be due to the negligence of the parent. In a case so exceptional, the authority can still get at the parent by proceeding against him under Subsection (2).

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving so much consideration to this Amendment. I had that in view, and when it was pointed out to me that it might be covered by the Act referred to, my objection was not altogether removed, on the ground that the child still had to be brought before the Court and enter an appearance there as a responsible person. That I considered an evasion of parental responsibility. But if this is as much as I can get, I must accept what has been given, I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Sir F. SMITH
I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "shall" ["he shall be liable"], to insert the words "unless an Order has been made against him in respect of such failure under Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908."

Mr. WHITE HOUSE
It is very difficult to give consideration to this matter on a manuscript Amendment dealing with a highly technical subject. The point I wish to put to the Attorney-General is this: Sub-section (2), which he is now proposing to amend, provides that a parent of a young person may be proceeded against if it is the parents' fault that the young person has not carried out his obligation. As I heard the Amendment read, the Attorney-General is going to remove the power to prosecute the parent in the cases he has read out. There is something, 812 I think, contradictory in the Amendment coming in that place. I may be quite wrong, but that is owing to the difficulty of following a highly technical point from an Amendment which is not on the Paper. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me if he has considered that point?

§ Sir F. SMITH
I have. It is not so. The only effect of the Amendment I now propose is that in the Sub-section there is an express reference to Section 99 of the Children Act, 1908. The only effect of that is that the Court which considers the Section as drafted now has its attention directly addressed to the matter.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I think this is a very desirable Amendment to make. I was responsible for the insertion in the Children Act, 1908, of the Clause referred to, and the object of putting it in was to adopt every means of enforcing that parental responsibility by which my hon. Friend (Sir W. Essex) sets such just store. It is desirable to insert the reference the Attorney-General proposes, not only, I venture to submit, in order to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that they have that power under the Children Act, but also in order to make it quite clear that that power is preserved, and not in any way limited by the words of this Sub-section, because it might be held that this Act, having been passed ten years after the Children Act, the parent would only be liable in regard to these particular functions to a penalty where it was proved that he had conduced to, or connived at, failure on the part of the young person. It would be conceivably hard to prove that. Of course, if a young person is considerably older, and when this Act has its full scope and operation, it is quite reasonable, I think, that the penalty should be made to fall directly upon the young person himself, or herself, as the case might be.