CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

HC Deb 12 May 1932 vol 265 cc2126-297

Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) resumed.

Viscountess ASTOR

I was dealing with what the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said with regard to this Clause not being in the Bill. One of the reasons he gave was that such a Clause was not related to the purposes of the Bill. When we have regard to Part IV of the Bill, which provides that no person under the age of 16 shall engage or be employed in street trading and imposes restrictions in regard to children employed in theatrical and dangerous performances, etc., it is nonsense to say that such a Clause as the one that I am now moving is in no way related to the Bill. It is related, and we have had promises from one Home Secretary after another that such a Clause would be inserted in the Children and Young Persons Bill. The Under-Secretary also said that if we inserted such a Clause it would open up a vast system of regulation which would entirely overshadow the main purposes of the Bill. It is because we do not want to do that that we have made it a very moderate Clause. The Undersecretary knows perfectly well that it will not open up a vast system of regulation which will in any way hurt the Bill.

The hon. Member was frightened of the Committee. He was frightened that when it went to Committee it would meet with opposition. The only sort of regular opposition in Committee came from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who is the natural successor of Lord Banbury, a former Member of this House. I hope the Noble Lord will live long in the other House. It is his spiritual home. The hon. Member for Torquay opposed the Bill for the sake of opposing it, but we all know that with a crack of the whip from the Government the hon. Member for Torquay would vote for anything. It is true that it was a difficult Bill to deal with, but a Minister never had a better or a more docile Committee. I am sure that I am speaking for the whole Committee when I say that it was a very difficult Bill for us to follow, because most of it was legislation by reference. It is very difficult and complicated. If our Clause had been inserted it would have been the only simple thing in it. Anybody can understand the Clause. I want hon. Members to understand that such a Clause would not have been defeated in Committee unless there had been a most specific promise from the Under-Secretary that the Government would bring in a Bill dealing with these children at some other time.

Look at the promises which the Undersecretary made in Committee. One of his promises was that if industry permitted, if conditions improved, he would bring it in. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), for the first time in my life, when he said that whenever a Bill has been brought before the House of Commons dealing with the regulation of juveniles the same arguments have always been used. He is perfectly right. I have read a great many of the Debates on this subject, and it is perfectly amazing to see the same arguments brought up over and over again. The same type of mind says the same thing; industry cannot afford it. The Under-Secretary of State did not deal with that point very much upstairs, because the Committee would not have stood it. [Interruption.] He pointed out that we had made great strides in the regulation of children in industry without legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is perfectly true, but in this new Clause we are trying to legislate for those people who are bad employers. This will not effect in any way the good employer. The only thing it will do is to make it better for the good employer, who at the present moment has to stand the competition of the bad employer.

The Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment went thoroughly into this matter and they said that as these children were in subsidiary trades it would not affect industry at all. Therefore, the argument that it will injure industry does not hold good. The council also pointed out, quite truly, that some of these occupations were not in themselves unhealthy, and that is another point which must be taken into consideration. Children leave school at the age of 14 and they have to go into these blind-alley occupations. It is very bad for children between the ages of 14 and 17 to have to work 12 hours a day. There is no time for them to attend continuation classes. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) told us that a great many of these children wanted further education, and the Advisory Council also said that many of them wanted it but could not get it, and that it was very bad for children of this age to have no chance of improving their education by going to a continuation class. But, above all, and most important, is the length of time which these children are at the disposal of their employers. Only 45 per cent. of these children attend any classes at all. I want the House to visualise the position. We know what long hours are in this House and how much time is wasted, not because we are doing things but because we are at the disposal of the public. It is the same with these young people.

It is a terrible thing to think that there are thousands of children who are at the disposal of their employers from 12 to 14 hours a day. We have had an inquiry into these blind-alley occupations and trades, which showed that out of 50,000 errand boys 25 per cent. of them have no hope of ever getting good jobs. They went on to say that boys who have to ride bicycles and tricycles in their occupation were below the average boy in intelligence, punctuality and character. They considered that this work encouraged instability and gave openings for delinquency. As long as they have to go into these blind-alley jobs let us see that they work only a certain number of hours per day, not 12 and 14 hours. Let us see that they have a chance to develop their character. That is all I am asking in this new Clause; it is not very much. It is really very little. In the Committee upstairs the Under-Secretary said that before legislation of this kind could be passed we must find out the cost to industry. He knows perfectly well that if we are to find out the cost to industry of the occupation of these young people in miscellaneous and unorganised trades we shall have to set up another committee, perhaps a Royal Commission.

Mr. STANLEY

I hope the Noble Lady will make it plain that the council definitely stated that they did not consider the effect of these restrictions on industry.

Viscountess ASTOR

I quite agree; but they also definitely said this: The majority of these boys and girls are employed in subsidiary occupations, and it cannot be claimed that some limitation of their hours of employment would have any appreciable effect on the cost of production or on the competitive power of British industry. As a general rule the more progressive employers afford satisfactory conditions of employment, but are open to competition by those who employ boys and girls for excessive hours. It was the majority of the Committee who said that. The Under-Secretary is taking the point of view of the minority; the five blind men.

Mr. STANLEY

Surely the Noble Lady who has studied this report very carefully would not like a mistake to creep into her speech. If she will read page 13 in the Report of the majority she will find that: Neither the council nor the majority of local committees have, in the course of the inquiry, taken any evidence as to the effect of restrictive legislation on the occupations affected.

Viscountess ASTOR

That is perfectly true, but later on they said what I have just read out to the House. In their terms of reference they were to see what effect it would have on industry, and they said that it would have very little effect. But supposing that it did have an effect on industry, is the Under-Secretary prepared to say that boys and girls between the ages of 14 years and 18 years must work 12 and 14 hours a day because industry cannot afford it? If industry wants to work anyone such long hours let them work the adults, not these children in miscellaneous and unorganised trades. I am amazed and astonished that that point of view should be put before the House by the Under-Secretary of State. We have also been told that there is a Convention in Geneva which is going to report. We have had a very unsatisfactory answer to-day about that Convention which is looking into the hours of children. This is what the British representative Sir Malcolm Delavigne said: The Government would find it impossible to accept the Convention for a long time to come. The Under-Secretary knows this as well as I do. The report of this Convention will be like that of the Washington Hours Convention, which no Govern- ment has yet attempted to put into operation. Anyone who voted against the Amendment in Committee is perfectly free to vote for it now. I want to make one last appeal. The President of the Board of Education told us some time ago to watch Czechoslovakia, and what they were doing. He pointed out that there were 170,000 boys in industry in Czechoslovakia who were released for two hours a day from their employment in order to allow them to attend education classes. If we had the same system in operation here, said the right hon. Gentleman we should have 500,000 young people getting education at continuation classes. I wish hon. Members could have heard the speech of the late Mr. Fisher when he was bringing in his Bill in 1918—

HON. MEMBERS: He is still alive.

Viscountess ASTOR

I mean "late" to this House. When people leave this House they are dead for me.

Miss CAZALET

What about Lord Astor?

Viscountess ASTOR

That is perfectly true. He is practically dead most of the time. If we had passed the Bill which Mr. Fisher introduced in 1918 it would have saved the country millions in taxation, and we should have had a far better system of education than we have now. The Advisory Council in their report said: On what do wages and profits ultimately depend? They depend, as we all know, in the last resort upon the economic output of the community, and this output ultimately depends on the physique, character, and intelligence of the community. That is perfectly true. These children in these miscellaneous and unregulated trades come from the poorest families in the country. I do not want to be class conscious like the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I do not believe in his heart that he is class conscious. [Interruption.] How can he be when his son is a capitalist? Do not be ridiculous. i know of a woman in humble circumstances with a very brilliant child, a boy, who desired to go on with his education, but she had to send him into a blind alley occupation. He was 14 years of age, just out of school and longing to con- tinue his education; but he could not. What chance has a child like that? I could give the House case after case of children who have bad to go into blind alley jobs with no chance of getting out afterwards. That is the misery of it all. It is quite true that there are only 400,000 or 500,000 of these children, but if they were our children we should perhaps think a little differently. I want to legislate for other people's children as I would legislate for my own. That is our job. They are unorganised and the trade unions are not going to fight for them. If the House of Commons does not take steps now I believe that it will bring bitter disappointment to the hearts of many men and women, social reformers of all sorts, who have watched these children and who desire to give them a chance in life.

6.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary said he did not know what the local authorities thought about this matter. The Executive Committee of the Association of Education Committees and the Education Committee of the County Councils Association, last week both considered the Children and Young Persons Bill and they both agreed that it was desirable to regulate the hours and conditions of labour of children in unregulated occupations. This new Clause has the backing of practically every association which is dealing with children. It is not a wild proposal; it is a Conservative proposal. I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council is no longer in his place, because only the other day he appealed eloquently to the young. I wish that I could appeal to the old on behalf of the young with the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman. I ask hon. Members to consider how bitter and how cynical would be some of these poor children who are working 14 hours a day if they read a speech appealing to youth.

I appeal for youth to this new House of Commons. I believe, in all sincerity, that the majority in this House would do anything and would vote in any way which they thought was for the national good. I do not believe that they agree with that minority of five employers who, having heard all the evidence upon this subject, said it struck them with a sense of unreality that the Government should bring in legislation on the matter at this time. In 1803 when Sir Robert Peel tried to bring in legislation to regulate the hours of children between seven and 13 who were working 16 hours a day in factories, the employers used the same excuse. I ask the House not to be put off by Government promises. I have no doubt the Government mean those promises, but, if we go into the Lobby and vote for this new Clause, we shall be strengthening the national cause, and doing the Government a kindness even though they may not think so.

Colonel GOODMAN

I beg to second the Motion.

As I see it, the purpose of this new Clause is to deal with the hours of labour of boys and girls who, after leaving school, find themselves in a kind of "No Man's Land" where the general conditions of employment are regulated but there is no regulation in force to limit the hours of labour. The Bill makes provision for dealing with the hours of labour of those juveniles who arc still at school and, very properly, the restrictions in that respect are considerable. When these boys and girls leave school, if they pass into the category described by the Noble Lady as unorganised and miscellaneous trades, no limitations are provided in respect of the hours which they are called upon to work. The Bill provides that for children who are still at school, up to the age of 14 plus, the hours of labour shall be limited to two per day, one in the morning and one in the evening. But when those children leave school and take up one of the occupations which have been referred to, they may go to work within a month, or a week, or even a day, and there is no reason then why an employer should not keep them at work for 70 or 80 or 90 hours a week. That seems to be highly illogical, and it is all the more so because, when these same boys and girls attain a more mature age, the hours during which they are permitted to work are limited either by Statute or by agreement. Over the whole of organised industry, 92½ per cent. of those engaged have a working week of 48 hours or less. In some cases that condition has been brought about by Statute; in other cases it is the result of agreements between the em- ployers and employés' organisations in the industries concerned.

I am sure there are no Members in this House, to whatever party they may belong, who are not gratified that organised industry has been able to come to these agreements which give to those employed a working week of 48 hours or less. Most of those employed in those occupations are strong, healthy men and women, some of them being skilled workers earning quite good wages. It has not been suggested to them, as the Under-Secretary, in Committee, suggested to the adolescents for whom I am pleading that industry in this country would suffer unless they were permitted to work long hours. Engineers, compositors, builders, furniture machinists, miners—practically all those in organised industries—have the chance, through their unions, if they have agreements of bringing their case even to this House and, through their unions, they can afford to pay advocates to state their case here or in conference with their employers. I speak this afternoon for those who enjoy no such advantage—van boys, messengers, errand boys and boys and girls working in hotels, restaurants and eating-houses. I have here the report of the Committee on Wage-Earning Children which says that 104,908 children between the ages of 14 and 15 are employed as messengers and van boys. In two age groups alone an additional 249,628 are employed as indoor servants in hotels, restaurants and eating-houses and 7,648 in entertainments. At the lowest estimate, the report states more than 500,000 boys and girls are outside the protection which the law gives in other occupations.

Hundreds of cases are given in the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, and, if the House will bear with me, I would like to mention three or four. Case A is that of a boy 17 years of age, working in a large retail store. Hours 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. at earliest; several times was among the first vans to return and therefore given a second or further load, in which case he finished at 11 p.m. No half holidays for a month and the minimum hours worked per week 78. Case H is that of a girl shop assistant in a confectionery and tobacco shop. Her hours are 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on six days of the week, and 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on one day of the week. Exclusive of meals, she has 64 hours of work per week and inclusive of meals, 70 hours. There is another case of a girl 14 years of age whose wages are 5s. per week and food. She works from 7.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on four days of the week; 7.30 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday, and 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Saturday. No half-day. Inclusive of meals, the hours worked are 74½ per week. Another case is that of a boy working in a garage. Of course this is an extreme case. The boy commenced work at 7 o'clock each morning and worked until 10.15 each night. He had no half-day and Sundays were also worked. This boy was never worked at this place of employment for less than 90 hours per week.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL

Whose evidence is the hon. and gallant Member quoting in regard to these cases?

Colonel GOODMAN

I am quoting from the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants—the evidence of Mr. E. Q. Greenwell. In my opinion, that such things should be, is a disgrace and, that such things should be permitted by a Government which has every power to alter them, is a scandal. The Noble Lady mentioned that the secretary to the right hon. Gentleman who is leader of my party and Lord President of the Council, had said that he realised the need for legislation in occupations which were not provided for and that the Conservative party would see that legislation was introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. I know that this is a National Government and not a Conservative Government. I also know that the Lord President of the Council has an ambition to see that all his promises are fulfilled. This is his opportunity. The Undersecretary in Committee said that he had permission to give a definite pledge on behalf of the Government that they would legislate for these unfortunate boys and girls as soon as the industrial situation improved. I regret that I am entirely unconvinced that it is necessary for the prosperity of the industry of Great Britain that vanboys and errand boys and restaurant waitresses should have to work vastly longer hours than miners, engineers, builders or any of those employed in, industries, which are more or less protected by trade unions and are so well represented politically by the Labour party.

A simple test can be applied to the pledge of the Under-Secretary. I am not suggesting any doubt as to his sincerity. I should be the last to do so, and I do not think that any hon. Member would doubt his sincerity. But I should like to put two questions to him, and then to ask him to decide whether in view of the answers to those questions, there is any real value in such a pledge. When will the industrial situation improve to a degree which justifies the Government in giving effect to that pledge? Will the Government on whose behalf that pledge is given then be in power? The hon. Gentleman does not know, I do not know, nor does any hon. Member of this House know. Therefore I say that the Under-Secretary's pledge, though it may bring consolation to some, will certainly bring no consolation to the boys and girls on whose behalf I am speaking. If it brings consolation at all, it will be to those who desire that nothing should be done. It is just possible that the Under-Secretary has not had occasion to be brought into close acquaintance with the problems of work and wages which face boys and girls leaving school at the age of 14 and I suggest to him, either that he should accept this new Clause which gives effect to the view expressed by his leader and mine, or that he should give a pledge to the House that when the Bill goes to another place he will undertake to see a new Clause inserted giving effect to the proposals put forward to-day in this discussion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I rise to indicate the views of my hon. Friends on this side with regard to this new Clause proposed by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). We were not able to secure the Noble Lady's support for our own proposal upstairs, nor were we able to do so this afternoon for our Clause limiting the weekly hours to 48. I wonder whether the Noble Lady has not exaggerated very substantially what her proposed Clause will effect. The Noble Lady begins in her Clause by making a declaration implying that it is necessary that this excessive employment among young persons should be dealt with. So far, so good. We tried to give effect to that declaration through the medium of our Clause which has just been rejected. But, having laid down the proposition by implication that it is necessary to deal with this matter, the Noble Lady then says that the way to deal with it is by the method of by-law. I see opposite the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who was once President of the Board of Education, and the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl), who was his assistant in the last Tory Administration, and they will know that at this very moment local education authorities have the power, subject to the endorsement of the Board of Education, to raise the school-leaving age within their administrative areas from 14 to 15, but it is a matter entirely of local by-laws, and what has happened? From 1918 to this moment there are, I believe, only some four or five local authorities which have even attempted to avail themselves of that power.

Viscountess ASTOR

Education is a little different. I believe that some 99 local authorities have taken powers to deal with street trading.

Mr. JONES

I am taking now the history of the activity of local bodies in regard to the power of applying by-laws. In the matter of education, only some four or five have acted at all. What is the truth in regard to by-laws concerning this matter? At this moment there is, I believe, only one local authority which has secured powers to deal with this matter through the medium of by-laws, and that is the Corporation of the City of Liverpool, which has the powers for dealing with this matter, yet actually it has not yet drafted its by-laws. If it has done so, it has been very recently indeed. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State says that it has been done recently, but I do not believe they are yet in operation. That means that there is no real desire among local authorities, of their own volition, to apply this kind of by-law. We are therefore driven to this conclusion: Either we must leave the matter entirely alone, or, if we are to act, we must act on a national front. Clearly this is the sort of legislation which you can most inaptly deal with by means of local by-laws and more aptly deal with by means of national action.

We are to presume that this House enables local authorities to apply for by- law powers, but not one of the classes or individuals which the Noble Lady and her Seconder cited in support of her Clause as being particularly appealing cases would necessarily have been dealt with if the local authority had by-law powers in the area in question. There are some 500,000 children in this country in unregulated trades and occupations. Will the Noble Lady give me an estimate as to how many young persons will actually be brought within the purview of this Clause if it is applied? It will not be 100,000; it will not be 50,000; I doubt if it will be 20,000. Why do I say that? Let the Noble Lady look at the exclusions from her own Clause. There are whole categories excluded deliberately from the operation of the Clause— factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, offices, building and engineering trades, agriculture, and domestic service.

May I take that last class, the domestic servant, for here surely is a class of individuals who, above all others, are least able to secure that sort of trade union action to which the Under-Secretary of State referred a few minutes ago with such admiration. It is extremely difficult to organise domestic servants, as the House knows, yet they are to be deliberately excluded from the purview of this Clause, even though local authorities may be willing to get by-laws for dealing with them. I submit, therefore, that the Noble Lady exaggerates beyond all measure the value of her Clause. I shall vote for it; I shall heartily vote for it, if it only includes 10,000, but please do not let us lead the House or the country to believe that we are sweeping into the purview of this legislation a vast number of people concerning whom we are so very much touched.

Colonel GOODMAN

If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to quote again the fact that 104,908 children are employed as van boys and messenger boys, and that as indoor servants in hotels, restaurants, and eating houses another 249,,628 are employed. All those are included in the scope of this Clause.

Mr. JONES

That is on the assumption that all the local authorities where these van boys are employed will apply for by-laws and put them into operation, but I ask the Noble Lady and her Seconder, concerning whose genuineness and good faith in this matter I have no doubt whatever, whether they will go to the various local authority areas in this country, one by one, and tell me what proportion of them are likely to apply for the powers with which these by-laws would invest them. I think they must come to the conclusion that the number would be almost infinitesimal. At any rate, our experience indicates that of the vast numbers of municipalities up and down the country which might have applied for by-law powers, only one has done so, and even that one, having got the powers, has not yet applied them. Therefore, the Noble Lady, however well-intentioned may be her Clause, is not entitled to argue that it will do anything very much, other than possibly being beneficial within certain areas where the majority of a town council or a city council may be pre-disposed in favour of social amelioration of this sort. But, though we cannot believe that there will be ultimately many people roped into the benefit of this Clause if carried, we shall vote for it on its merits.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has, probably quite rightly, pointed out that there are objections, and strong administrative objections, to procedure by by-law in a matter of this kind. One of the objections, which he did not mention, is, that when you get regulations of this kind being made in one part of the country but not in a neighbouring part, it leads to a great deal of administrative difficulty and considerable restraint upon trade. But I am not primarily concerned with the administrative machinery which the Noble Lady proposes to set up by means of this Clause. I am more concerned with whether it will in the long run be of benefit, not to one particular section of this country, but to the country as a whole, and I have formed the opinion that it will not be of benefit to this country as a whole.

I spend a great deal of my time—have done in the past, and do at present— working among and for children and young people, and under normal circumstances this particular type of Clause would be one which would strongly appeal to me. I have frequently been struck, and I might almost say amused, by the fact that in the period of 14 years in which, off and on, I have sat in this House, any Member can nearly always make a successful appeal to sentiment. I have done so myself on more than one occasion in the past, when pleading the claims of ex-service men, but I am more than ever convinced that at the present time we cannot regard questions of this kind solely from the point of view of what we choose to call sentiment. As Chairman of the Estimates Committee upstairs, half, and more than half, my time is spent in trying to clear up the chaos which exists in our finances at present because the late Labour Government insisted on being guided by a policy of sentiment instead of by a policy of common sense.

Viscountess ASTOR

Does my hon. and gallant Friend think I am entirely depending on sentiment?

Sir V. HENDERSON

I did not interrupt the Noble Lady, and I ask her to oblige by not interrupting me. I am perfectly convinced that if this House, whenever it has an opportunity for saving money, for saving an increased expenditure on the rates, is going to say, "Oh, well, on this occasion it does not matter; on this occasion perhaps we ought to do this," then the main purpose for which we as a House were elected last autumn will not be achieved. We were sent here for one main purpose, and one main purpose only, and that was to bring this country back on to a sound economic basis. We shall never do it if we insist on giving way to appeals to sentiment whenever they are put up. The Noble Lady made some reference to the report of the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Employment. There was, as she pointed out, both a Majority Report and a Minority Report, and it is a remarkable fact that the Minority Report was signed by every employer on the Committee. Employers in this country as a whole are not unreasonable men, they are not hard-hearted men, and they do not sign reports generally without having very good reasons for putting their signatures to them. I observe that the Minority report begins by saying that the proposals made by the majority would mean the imposing of further regulations on trade, the keeping of additional records by employers, and the expenditure of public funds on inspection and administration. The Noble Lady seemed rather surprised that the Minority report should conclude by submitting that there was no justification for the recommendations which the Majority report puts forward. They ventured to add that any proposal that this country should divert its attention from urgent national issues and embark on legislation of this nature, strikes us with a complete sense of unreality. 6.30 p.m.

Of course, it strikes any sensible man or woman with a complete sense of unreality, because the purpose for which we were sent here last autumn was to deal with the one question of economy, and we will never deal with it—we have hardly started to deal with it yet—if, whenever proposals are put up in a Bill for increased expenditure, we are immediately to give way on sentimental grounds. Apart from that fact, there is a strong reason why we should not support this proposal. Anybody who is interested in education and has followed the trend of education in the last few years, knows quite well that next year there will be a very big decrease in the number of children leaving school. That decrease will be continuous, and it is so great, as hon. Members may have seen from figures which were recently published in the Press, that in many districts there will not be a surplus of juvenile labour, but a very great shortage.

What will happen then? The juvenile labour which is available will naturally tend to go into the most congenial channels. It will take the employment which offers the best wages and the shortest hours. The Noble Lady is. now proposing that we should adopt an Amendment which will give local authorities power to make by-laws, which, I undertake to say, in two or three years' time in many districts will not be required, because the problem will have solved itself. There will not be any surplus juvenile labour, and the blind-alley occupations will be without juveniles to fill them. The long hours will become shorter because employers will have to make their conditions better in order to get the labour. If that be the case, it is an extremely short-sighted policy to propose at the present time that local authorities should be armed with by-laws of this kind which, in all probability, will not be needed at all. I hope for that reason, and also because it is essential that we should keep the question of economy in front of us, that every Member will think carefully before he supports the proposed Clause.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel)

My hon. Friend who is in charge of this Bill has suggested that it might be of service to the House if at this stage I made some observations on the course which has been pursued and will be pursued by the Government. The House has listened with the greatest interest to the Debate so far, and especially to the speech of the Noble Lady who introduced this Clause. The House was impressed by her sincerity; it respects her zeal in this matter, just as it admires her gallantry and enjoys her humour. We all know that for a long time she has laboured indefatigably with a view to securing the legislation which she has now brought before the House, with a very effective ally in another place. I do not propose to controvert anything that she has said on the merits of this proposal. Indeed, speaking personally, I agree with the case that she has made out. I think that evils do exist and that remedies ought to be applied. But the point to which I would ask the House to address itself is whether the Government were right in not introducing this proposal in this Bill, and whether they are right in not accepting its insertion now.

Let me remind the House of the genesis of the Bill. There was an Act passed in 1908—the Children Act—which dealt with delinquent and neglected children. Years went by, opinion progressed, fresh opportunities offered, and there was a general agreement that the time was ripe for a further advance, and that the Children Act, 1908, could be amended with advantage in many particulars and brought up-to-date. Accordingly, my predecessor—Sir William Joynson-Hicks, as he then was—appointed a Departmental Committee on Juvenile Offenders, which went into all these matters and arrived at a report, which was unanimous except on one minor point, in 1927. That report was universally approved, and Parliament would have been quite ready to legislate upon it, but years went by, no Bill was introduced, and these extremely valuable recommendations were left in the pigeon-holes of the Home Office. When the new Government came in last year, and we were considering our Parliamentary programme, our hands were very much tied on account of the necessity of not making any proposals that involved increased expenditure. Almost all Measures of social reform involve expenditure, either by the State or by the local authorities, and when we at the Home Office were considering what Measures we could properly bring before Parliament to promote social progress, which did not at the same time involve expenditure, our choice was very limited.

We thought, however, that the time was fully ripe for amending the Children Act, 1908, and for adopting the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. We secured the assent of our colleagues in the Cabinet for the introduction of a Bill of that character. The question then arose whether the Bill, unlike the Children Act, 1908, which it proposed to amend, could contain Clauses dealing with child employment. If there were universal agreement on those Clauses, we thought we could introduce them. So far as there was universal agreement, we have introduced them, and there are some Clauses, not of very great importance I agree, and mainly of a drafting character, except in one particular, which we thought could be taken from the Education Acts, embodied here, and brought up-to-date. Then came the question whether the particular proposals which the Noble Lady has championed with so much eloquence and power could come within that category. In order to decide that, we awaited the report of a committee which was examining the matter and which was on the eve of presenting its report. We held back the final consideration of the Bill until the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment was ready to give its advice. We urged the council to report as speedily as possible in order that the Government might decide finally what the character of the Bill should be. While the Bill was awaiting its final printing, the report was presented.

Let me draw the attention of the House to the composition of that council. It consists of the chairman, Lord Goschen, nine representatives of education authorities, five employers' representatives, five trade union representatives, five representatives of the teaching profession, and a few others representing the London Advisory Council and the Ministry of Labour. The council was intended by its composition to represent all the various interests concerned in this important matter, and the Government would naturally rely upon the report of this body in any course that they took. The majority, as the Noble Lady has said, reported their agreement to these proposals, but they said, as has already been quoted by the Under-Secretary in an interruption, that neither the council nor the majority of local committees have, in the course of the inquiry, taken any evidence as to the effect of restrictive legislation on the occupations affected, but, in the light of our own experience and in view of the request made to us for an urgent report, we beg to submit the following further recommendations. They proceeded to add this sentence, which is of considerable importance in this connection: We would further add that we are not unmindful of the present economic and industrial position of the country, but we feel that it is beyond our function to advise as to whether immediate action should be taken on these recommendations. We had to take that sentence very much into account. Even more important was the report that came from the section of the committee representing the employers. They presented a unanimous Minority Report representing, in the strongest and most unqualified terms in three pages of the report, that this legislation ought not to be promoted at the present time.

Viscountess ASTOR

Would the right hon. Gentleman mind reading what the majority said a little further on? According to them, it would have very little effect on industry.

Sir H. SAMUEL

I made it clear that the majority were in favour, and the Noble Lady read their recommendations, so that there is no need to repeat them. They said that they were in favour of the proposals, but that it was beyond their function to advise whether this was a propitious time to introduce them. The employers' representatives declared an uncompromising opposition. That was the situation in which the Government found themselves last January when this report was presented. Hon. Members are well aware that there is within the Government—within every Government —keen competition between the Departments for opportunities to present Departmental legislation. The zeal that animates all the various Departments results in a very considerable competition for Parliamentary time, which is of a limited character. Before the beginning of each Session there is a very severe struggle for existence for Parliamentary Bills, of which I hope the fittest survive, but certainly the most persistent or least obnoxious survive. While a Bill which is of the first importance, and in which the credit of the Government is engaged, because it deals with large matters of national policy, may be and will be fought through, although it may be controversial, yet if a merely Departmental Bill is struggling for a place in the Parliamentary programme, it has to persuade the Cabinet and the Whips that it can be regarded as non-controversial.

That was the issue. Was our Children and Young Persons Bill to be a controversial Bill or a non-controversial Bill? If we could give an assurance that it was non-controversial a place would be found for it, but if it was likely to lead to prolonged Parliamentary Debates, then other Bills which would not be subject to that objection would probably be given preference. I tell the House frankly and candidly the secrets of the prison-house, or whatever it may be called. These are the circumstances in which all Governments have to deal with their programme of legislation. The Noble Lady said employment Clauses were included in the draft Bill contemplated by our predecessors, the late Labour Government. That, no doubt, is quite true, and was declared by that Government itself. In July, 1929, the late Administration said that it was going to deal with this question, and would introduce a Children Bill based upon the report of the Departmental Committee, and that it would include employment Clauses. In November, 1929, a representative of that Government repeated the undertaking. In December, 1930, the assurance was given once more, and again in March, 1931; but there was no Bill. The Bill never appeared. It is quite true that such Clauses were in the Bill, but the Bill was never in the House, and for the reason, probably, that it was recognised that those Clauses would become controversial and that the Bill would take up too much time.

I was in a similar position when I introduced the original Children Bill in 190S. I had to decide whether I would make it even more comprehensive than it was, and include a number of child employment Clauses, for which the time was then ripe, but which were controversial, and I decided that it would be much better, as my Bill would necessarily have to be voluminous—more than 100 Clauses—not to extend its scope too widely, with the risk that in seeking to do too much I might achieve nothing. Consequently, the Children Act, 1908, which this Bill is mainly designed to amend, did not include any Employment Clauses. Nevertheless, it was received with the general approval of the House, and was passed into law. The position is the same now. As the representative of the employers clearly indicated that such a Bill would be met with a strong opposition, and other Members hold the same views, we thought it would imperil the whole crew and cargo of our boat if we took on board what might prove to be a Jonah, no matter how estimable the character of this Jonah might be, as the character of the original Jonah was.

Viscountess ASTOR rose—

Sir H. SAMUEL

I do not think— [Interruption.]

Viscountess ASTOR

This is the last time I will interrupt.

Sir H. SAMUEL

To-day, or ever?

Viscountess ASTOR

To-day! The Home Secretary has said that he thought such a Clause would be controversial— he has picked out two Members as saying that, and I know them—but I ask him to leave it to the free vote of the House, and then the Government will know where they are. If it is left to a free vote of the House and we pass it, surely, as the Government are so anxious for it, they will welcome such a chance of doing what their hearts ache to do. Just leave it to a free vote!

Sir H. SAMUEL

If we had introduced this Clause into the Bill when it was introduced originally, and then left it to the free vote of the House, we should, in effect, have been saying, "We will take this Jonah on board, but he may be thrown overboard at any time." [Interruption.] He might be told that he ought to be going to Nineveh and not to Tarshish; that he really belongs to an employment Bill and not to a juvenile offenders Bill, and he would have been discarded. That would have made an exceedingly awkward Parliamentary situation—to have had a Bill strongly opposed, as a whole, on Second Reading, by a number of hon. Members who oppose this Clause, and then to have the Government say, "Though we are all in favour of this Clause, we cannot give time to fight the whole Bill of 80 Clauses if it is obstructed and opposed, and so we will strike out this Clause"—after having introduced it, pledged ourselves to it and given the arguments for it. As the House will realise, that would have been a very awkward Parliamentary situation. We therefore decided that this Bill should be limited in substance to the same kind of provisions as those to which the original Children Bill was limited, and not regarded as a child employment Bill, a subject which ought to be dealt with by separate legislation.

The Noble Lady asks, "Why not let your hands be forced by the Committee upstairs or by the House on the Report stage?" That raises another question. When we introduced this Bill as a non-controversial one, we told the employers in effect by our action, that they need not concern themselves to agitate against the Bill, to send any representations to Members of Parliament against the Second Reading; that this was a Bill to which everyone would agree; that it would not raise any disputed points. The Bill went through Second Reading with universal approval. No opposition was raised on this ground. Suppose we now say, "Very well, now that we have got through the Second Reading, in Committee or on the Report stage we will put in this controversial matter." Would that be dealing fairly with the House or with the interests outside that had objected to this provision? I think the provision is a good one, but there are others who object. Suppose some hon. Member, of a suspicious nature, had risen on Second Reading and said, "There are some hon. Members who desire to have in the Bill a Clause to which we object. The Government have introduced this Measure without that Clause, and have said this is going to be a non-controversial Bill. If I allow the Second Reading to go through without opposition, of course you will not afterwards come forward and say, 'We are very sorry, but we find it necessary to introduce this controversial Clause.'" If any such assurance had been asked for, a representative of the Government would have given that assurance. We could not at one and the same time say, "This is a non-controversial Bill, pass it on that basis, but later on, after it has passed through one or two stages without being obstructed, we may—

Mr. G. NICHOLSON

Is that a hypothetical question, or was that assurance given?

Sir H. SAMUEL

No, there was not an hon. Member who would have thought it possible, and—

Mr. NICHOLSON

Then it is hypothetical?

Sir H. SAMUEL

Quite. No such assurance was given, because no such request was made. The House has confidence that if a Bill is brought in and given a Second Reading as a non-controversial Measure, the Government will not later introduce a provision of great importance which does not command general assent and which has been regarded from the outset as so controversial that it was not introduced in the Bill at first.

Mr. DAVID MASON

You did take that course with regard to the Finance Bill by introducing later the Silk Duties.

Sir H. SAMUEL

That was different. My hon. Friend who introduced this Bill explained why it was that these Clauses had not been introduced. The Government having taken that course on introduction, felt it would not be treating the House or the interests concerned fairly if, afterwards, they changed their attitude, swung round completely, and, having secured the assent of the House on one basis, agreed to the insertion of controversial Clauses. If we had done that it would imperil any large Measure introduced in the future as being non-controversial, because someone might say, "Yes, this Bill is non-controversial as it stands, but how do we know the Government will not do as was done on the Children Bill in 1932?" I suggest that on. the broadest grounds it is not desirable to take this course. These arguments commended themselves to the Standing Committee, which by 29 votes to 9 refused to accept the Clause now moved by the Noble Lady. But that did not mean that those 29 Members were against this Clause on its merits. I think a considerable number stated that they favoured the Clause on its merits, just as there are a number of Members in the House to-day who, I trust and believe, will vote against this Clause now, not because they disapprove of the Clause itself, or think it undesirable as a piece of legislation, but because they do not in the circumstances of to-day regard this Bill as the right vehicle by which this provision can be carried on to the Statute Book.

Let me say, finally, that there is substance in the consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend, but rather derided by the Noble Lady, that there is now being negotiated at Geneva a Convention dealing with the employment of children. This Convention would embody a number of proposals, some of which are likely to require legislation. They have not yet been considered by the Government. We anticipate that certain legislation will be needed to implement and to make possible the ratification of that Convention. It will probably be on comparatively minor points only, as our legislation, for the most part, conforms already to the Convention. When that legislation is introduced will be the time to embody the particular provision which the Noble Lady has now in mind. We cannot have two Bills—or it would be inconvenient to have two Bills—and the two proposals can be combined in one. The Government, therefore, have given an undertaking that, while they are not opposed in any way to the Clause proposed by the Noble Lady on merits—no one has argued that the proposal is a bad one—[Interruption]—an undertaking has been given not only on the authority of my hon. Friend and of our Department, but on the authority of the Government as a whole, that we are anxious to legislate upon this matter, and will do so as soon as the industrial position permits.

Viscountess ASTOR

Oh!

An HON. MEMBER: Next Session?

Sir H. SAMUEL

I am not authorised to give a pledge with regard to next Session, not because we do not desire to introduce the Bill next Session, but because we do not wish to give a pledge that we are not certain that we shall be in a position to fulfil. Circumstances might prevent this being proposed next Session, and therefore it would not be right to give an undertaking in such specific terms as that, with the possibility that later the C4overnment might have to come to the House, and, in an apologetic mood, ask to be relieved of the pledge given. We therefore go as far as we can go at this juncture, but I can assure the Noble Lady and the House that it is the real desire of the Government as a whole to deal with this matter. They recognise that there arc real grievances that should be remedied, and it is their intention to deal with the matter as soon as the circumstances permit.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman has given a pledge which is not a pledge. I do not regard this proposed new Clause as one of substantial importance, but it is better than nothing at all. I wish the Noble Lady's speech had been made on the first Clause, to which it was more appropriate than to her own. The Noble Lady has a bleeding heart; it is always bleeding, but it is never in the right place in the Division Lobby. There was much cry and little wool—not for the first time—with the Noble Lady. I do not agree that local authorities are the best people to deal with labour conditions. Where they have tried they have failed, but I would rather have them dealing with them than nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this Bill had been introduced as a non-controversial Bill and therefore ought not to be made into a controversial Measure now, because we have given undertakings to the employers that it shall not be made a controversial Bill. I have heard a great deal about the dictation of the Trades Union Congress, but here we have dictation by a body of employers on a Bill which is to be regarded as non-controversial. Why did they approach the Government, if they did not think this question was going to be raised?

Mr. STANLEY

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. There is no question of the Government being approached by the employers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred entirely to the Minority Report.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman went further than that. My impression and that of my hon. Friends— and the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear it out —is that he argued that the Government felt bound to regard this as a non-controversial Bill because employers would not like it if a Clause were introduced dealing with the hours of labour. He went on to say that the Government were not opposed to it on its merits, and were prepared to deal with this question when the industrial situation improved. The present Government will not be there when the industrial situation improves; they are making an offer to the House which they will not be here to fulfil. This argument about the industrial situation is a very old argument. Times have never been good enough to improve conditions; times have always been so bad that industrial conditions must wait until they are better. A report, to which the Government attaches importance, has been laid before this House by a committee which realises that this is a problem that ought to be dealt with. It is true that the committee state that they cannot say when it ought to be dealt with, and add that that is outside their terms of reference. Although the majority report was in favour of action, the Home Secretary emphasises the minority report and what he calls the uncompromising opposition of the employers. How long have employers been in a position to dictate to the House of Commons? This Bill may be regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as non-controversial, but, once it is on the Floor of the House, the House is entitled to modify it as it will. Yet, because a report on this question has been opposed by employers, and because the right hon. Gentleman does not like to offend them, although he appears to have offended many of his own colleagues on questions of principle, we are not to be allowed to bring this Clause within the four corners of the Bill and to approve it.

Let me make this appeal to the Government. It has been suggested that there should be a free vote on this question. I am not suggesting that there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of this new Clause, because I heard expressions of approval when the Home Secretary was speaking, but let it be put to a free vote of the House and let us agree to differ. It is the principle on which the Government is being conducted at this moment, and, if the Government can do it, why should not the House do it? If that principle is applied within the Cabinet, there is no reason why it should not be applied within the House of Commons on a question which is not a purely party question and which has been raised by the Noble Lady, who has always prided herself on being above party. If this Clause were put to a free vote of the House and hon. Members voted in accordance with the dictates of their consciences, I have no doubt that the Clause would be carried. If that be so, why should not this Government, which has been prepared to abolish team work on questions of high principle, give the House a chance to declare its own view on a question of ordinary human interest. I hope that, if the Government will not agree to accept this new Clause, it will agree to put it to a free vote of the House.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

The right hon. Member has made a moving appeal and has given what he considers to be very adequate reasons why this new Clause should be left to a free vote of the House. I would have been more moved by his appeal if I had not recollected the number of times when exactly the same arguments on exactly the same grounds, and in almost exactly the same words, had been made in the last Parliament from those Benches to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and were rejected on every occasion. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if the Government were suddenly, on the Report stage of the Bill, to leave to the free vote of the House a controversial matter on which they had hitherto been absolutely adamant, the promises of the Government would become valueless, and the possibilities of Departmental legislation would practically vanish. The Noble Lady dissented when the Home Secretary described this as a controversial matter. I can tell her that, if this Clause had been in the Bill as originally drafted, the Bill would not yet have come down from the Standing Committee, or been likely to come down from the Standing Committee.

As to the effect of this Clause, if incorporated in the Bill, the Noble Lady and the supporters of the Clause have spoken on it with sincerity, and I hope that they will give its opponents credit for the same sincerity. There is a tendency in dealing with these matters to suggest that the parties opposing them are interested parties. This is not the case in the present instance because, as far as I, personally, am concerned, the passage or rejection of this Clause will have no effect on me directly or indirectly. I am opposing it because I believe it to be unsound in theory and disastrous in practice. As to the theory, my view is not one commonly held on the Benches opposite. I do not believe that great regulation of employment and trade makes, on the whole, for better conditions of employment or for the greater prosperity of the class whom regulations were originally intended to assist. The immense amount of regulation which we have had in the past is a very considerable contributory factor to the trade depression and unemployment which are rife to-day. Further to interfere with the organisation of industry would react most disastrously not on the employers but on the employés.

I know that the motive of the supporters of this Clause is perfectly sincere. It is that, if some children do not have to work these hours, no children should. It was put with great force by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Why. he said, should the wealthier classes of the community not send their children to work? I am not certain that, if some of them did, they would not be improved. I cannot understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. He is always telling the wealthier classes in the country and in the House what an inferior people they are and is always trying to obtain the advantages that they enjoy for the class he represents. He is not consistent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

All I wish to say in reply to that is, God help the ruling class if the working class gets the chances that the ruling class gets to-day!

Mr. BEAUMONT

The hon. Member's interjection seems rather lacking in point. If he means that, if the working classes had the same protection legally as the other classes have economically, they would be infinitely improved, then, frankly, I am inclined to doubt him. You can have such a thing as over-protection, and the effect of this new Clause would be to emphasise that danger.

I want to consider what would be the effect of this Clause in practice. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) was wrong when he claimed that the object of this new Clause was to make the Bill work. Hon. Members who are supporting this new Clause have got very big hearts, but their heads are not in proportion, and they do not see the effect of their proposals. The effect would be to abolish jobs for young people and not to create them. The kind of work dealt with by these young people is not the sort which would be replaced by a man, because they are employed for the reason that it is convenient to employ them under suitable conditions. [Interruption.] I think the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) who moved the Clause is now coming back. The jobs that these young persons do and which will be affected by this new Clause are really created because there are a number of young people there to do them, and, if they are not available, the job will be abolished.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON

The proposals which we are discussing are intended simply to limit the hours of labour.

Mr. BEAUMONT

I am talking about the effect of the regulations, and in my view they would abolish those jobs. If the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) doubts what I say let him read what has been the effect of Acts which have been passed regulating the hours of children. Sometimes there was justification for such Acts. It may be argued that the Factory Acts were rendered necessary by the conditions under which young children were working in factories. Those conditions were considered to be detrimental to health, and that the children would be much better in health if they were not allowed to work in factories. But is that argument put forward in the ease? Is there any suggestion that the health of the children is affected by the kind of work which they undertake? It has been stated that the employment of young children deprives them of the opportunity of attending evening continuation classes, tout I would like to point out that most of those classes are struggling on at the present time, and, instead of more of such classes being needed, we find that people have to be canvassed to attend them. There is no justification whatever for the statement that the employment of young children has any ill-effect upon them either mentally or physically. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton on the Second Reading of this Bill said: Many hon. Members go to hotels and see the wretched little page boys. I saw one yesterday walking down St. James's Square. He was very smart. He took a comb out of his pocket and began to comb his hair. There was something tragic in that little fellow all dressed up. No doubt he was associating with all the 'toffs.' His hours might have been anything. What will be his future? I will not dwell on it, because I feel too strongly about it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1932; col. 1229, Vol. 261.] Would the Noble Lady sooner see that page boy standing in an unemployment queue and returning to a home existing on the dole?

Viscountess ASTOR

The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not the alternative. If that page boy's hours were limited to eight instead of 12 per day, he would not be standing in a queue because he was working shorter hours, and there would be more juveniles employed as page boys.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lady is breaking her promise.

Viscountess ASTOR

I made a promise to the Minister, but I certainly would not make such a promise to a back bencher.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The Noble Lady is proposing to put restrictions upon other people but she cannot restrain herself.

Mr. BEAUMONT

If the Noble Lady thinks that when the hours are limited these young people will be kept in employment I think she is quite wrong, because the effect will be that the jobs they are doing will disappear. If this new Clause is carried, the little man, instead of being what the Noble Lady has described as content with his job, he will find himself out of work, and his contribution to the home will cease. I would like to quote a few words from the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) which he delivered during the Second Reading Debate of this Bill. The hon. Member said: I wonder whether any Member of this House can be found to bring before us any child, not his own, who he is glad to know is working 60 hours a week. I invite him to do so. This Bill will be going on for some time, perhaps until the summer, and I should be glad if such a Member would bring this child to the Terrace. I should be delighted to give him a good plate of strawberries and cream, and I could assure that hon. Member of all the publicity he wants. The papers next morning should have pictures of the child who work 60 hours a week and the Member who is proud of the fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1932; col. 1233–4, Vol. 261.] With a slight amendment, I am prepared to accept the hon. Member's challenge. We will produce the child in question, and take him to the Terrace, where there will be two plates of strawberries for his distention. We will then both be photographed with the child. My picture will be marked with one cross as the Member who is proud that the child has a job, and is able to assist in the upkeep of his family. The hon. Member on the other hand will be marked with two crosses to show his greater virtue, and be distinguished as the Member who would deprive the child of his job and prefers to see him out of work because the conditions are not ideal. Whatever hon. Members may say to the contrary, I am sure that these proposals will seriously disorganise industry. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Leeds to the new Clause would put off its operation until such time as industry may be restored to health. For these reasons, I invite the house to reject the new Clause.

Mr. MORGAN

I feel that I ought to add my quota to this Debate, because I have been connected with educational bodies throughout my career. The speech which has just been made by the Undersecretary has perplexed and bewildered me, and I can assure him that I have read through every page of the Committee's proceedings. The acid test of the proposal which has been made by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is whether it is good for the children. I could not follow the argument of the Home Secretary when he tried to explain that the present is not a propitious time to deal with this question. I think we ought to deal with this question affecting the children at the earliest possible opportunity. After examining the Amendment of the Noble Lady, I am struck by the mildness of it. I want to express my regret to the hon. Member who has so far piloted this Bill with such great success that there is nothing in it, or in this new Clause that gives local authorities more power to deal with this question. I would like to see more "shall" and less "may" about it. As a rule, most of the by-laws which are dealt with in these proposals are held in abeyance and they are not put into force at all. The main reason for that is that some local authorities do not make proper arrangements to see that the by-laws are carried out, and I see nothing in this Bill to enforce local authorities to carry out those by-laws. That is one defect of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Another matter which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with in his reply is that there is a sort of dual feeling in certain districts that it is neither the business of the local education authority nor the town council to carry out the by-laws, and very often there is dissension between them. The truth is that nobody wants to carry out what is rather an unpopular job. If hon. Members look at the list of convictions or prosecutions brought under these particular heads, they will find that they are very few and far between. It is a significant thing that there is a failure to prosecute near the end of the year, or near the first of October, because they do not want that particular job. Some of my hon. Friends have said to me that such a provision would infringe the rights of parents, that it would be a continuation of what they call Dora-ism. If there is anyone who is more opposed to Dora-ism generally than myself, I should like to meet him; but, when it comes to the exploitation of child labour, I embrace D.O.R.A. on every possible occasion, both publicly and privately, locally and nationally—[Interruption]—and internationally. I want to lay down one point for the benefit of my friends with whom I have argued on this matter. They say that the parent is the best person to govern the child, and, generally speaking, that is perfectly true. The majority of parents, naturally, are the best guardians and custodians of their children, but there are exceptions. We have heard a great deal about sentiment in this Debate. I am not going to talk sentiment, but I should like to give one instance within my own experience not long ago. I saw a little chap in the street, and I asked him why he was crying. His answer was that he had not sold enough football specials to enable him to take home to his father and mother the necessary money for the Saturday night beer. That is a simple and striking example of the fact that some parents do need correction, and the State ought to undertake the protection of those children. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Undersecretary will take some step, if only in an administrative memorandum, to see that effect is given to the legislation of this House when the Bill is passed on to the local authorities. I support the Clause.

Sir G. RENTOUL

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) was addressing the House for the first time or not, but, in any case, I should like to congratulate him on the force and clarity with which he has put his point of view. He said, in effect, that surely there is no one who does not want to do good to the children. That is obvious; but I should like to protest against an underlying assumption in some of the speeches that have been made, that those of us who object to this proposed new Clause do so because we are indifferent with regard to the welfare of children. One may very strongly approve of a principle, and yet may equally strongly object to a particular method of dealing with it, which may strike one as totally unsatisfactory; and it is on that ground that I intend without hesitation to vote against this Clause.

I regret that I cannot support it, because, quite sincerely, I sympathise very much with the object that the Noble Lady has in view. I know she may say that sympathy is very cheap and does not carry us far, but, nevertheless, I sympathise very much, as I think we all must do, with any attempt to assist conditions affecting juveniles in unregulated or unorganised trades. At the same time, however, I feel that this particular Clause would be a most unsatisfactory method of attempting to grapple with a serious grievance. It is not often that I have the pleasure of finding myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), but I think he is perfectly right in saying that this Clause is extremely limited in scope. I agree that it is, and also that this matter, if it is to be dealt with at all, should be deal with from a national point of view, and not by this local procedure.

In the present conditions of industry, any attempt to impose a rigid general limitation of hours would be disastrous; and, apart from that, I believe that the best method of approaching this matter is from the point of view of voluntary arrangement and by trade union action. We all know that by these methods a very great improvement has been brought about in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly in connection with adults, but also to a very considerable extent in connection with children and young persons. At the same time, one could not help being much impressed by some of the evidence that was brought before the Select Committee on Shop Hours, of which I had the honour of being a member. Cases were quoted to us, some of which have been referred to this afternoon, of excessive and unreasonable hours being worked in the distributive trades—cases in which boys and girls of 14, 15, 16 and 17 were working 65 hours a week or more. But I would remind the House that those cases represented but a very small percentage of the total, and I would point out also that they should be approached with a certain amount of caution, because we found, on investigating some of them, in which it was suggested that altogether outrageous hours had been worked, that that was not a regular state of affairs, but something that had happened on one or two isolated occasions. Suggestions have been made that as much as 100 hours were being worked in a week. I should be very interested to see the evidence and to know any details of cases where 100 hours a week are being worked as a regular state of affairs by any young person to-day.

Viscountess ASTOR

That was in the Report of 1912, before the War, and it was accepted then; but no one has suggested that 100 hours are worked now.

Sir G. RENTOUL

I was not making any accusation against the Noble Lady, but two or three times in the course of this discussion references have been made to as much as 100 hours being worked. Other references have been made to 80 or 90 hours, and I should be interested to see Whose cases. The Select Committee tried to obtain some evidence in regard to them, but we were not successful in doing so. Although I am altogether opposed on principle to a statutory and rigid limitation of hours, I should be perfectly prepared to support State action with regard to juveniles in unorganised and unregulated trades, provided that there was a reasonable elasticity in regard to questions of overtime, seasonal employment, and matters of that kind, and that no undue burden was placed on industry in consequence. Therefore, as a method of approach to this matter, I should much prefer the last Amendment to this one; I should prefer that the matter should be dealt with by Parliament itself, and not by local authorities. I think, however, that hon. Members opposite will probably admit that their proposed Clause was extraordinarily rigid, and did not provide that elasticity which would be necessary—an objection which, taking the Clause as it stands on the Paper to-day, is a fatal objection.

The proposal that we are now considering seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. In the first place, it would create untold anomalies and inequalities as between one area and another throughout the country. It proposes that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the local authorities, so that there would be no uniformity. Different shops in different localities would be able to work different hours, and there is no provision for the earlier closing of shops as a whole, which I think is a much more promising method of approach to this problem. Holidays, also, would be entirely different. Therefore, I say without hesitation that I should prefer a statutory regulation, powers being given, perhaps, to local authorities to vary the conditions according to local circumstances, or, alternatively, the question of exceptions and elasticity might be left to some body in the nature of a local or national advisory board; and I would remind the House that the setting up of such boards was a suggestion put forward by the Select Committee.

Furthermore, this Clause would place additional burdens on local authorities. The Noble Lady, in moving it, made the special point that it was purely permissive in character, but to my mind that is a very strong objection to the Clause, and not an argument in favour of it at all. There is certainly no evidence that local authorities are willing to undertake these responsibilities. Reference has been made to the fact that only one local authority, namely, that of Liverpool, has applied for these powers, and, having got them, it has not seemed to be very anxious to put them into effect. Again, we have had no evidence as to the cost that would be involved, or the number of inspectors that the local authorities would need to appoint. With regard to this question of inspectors and costs, the Select Committee endeavoured to obtain some information or estimate from the Home Office as to what might be the probable cost of such a proposal as this, and the reply we received was that it was quite impossible to furnish any such estimate. If there had been any real desire on the part of local authorities to deal with this problem on their own account, they could, and would, have applied for powers to do so long before now. We have still a long way to go on this Bill; we are only on the first of some eight pages of Amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to develop my objections to this Clause any further at the moment, as I think the reasons I have given ought to be sufficient to show why I have come to the conclusion that the Clause, so far from being of assistance, would probably be detrimental to the object that the Noble Lady has in view.

Mr. DENMAN

I wish to make a preliminary protest, which I believe will find a somewhat wide echo in the House. The Home Secretary, who is primarily responsible for this Bill, came down to the House and delivered a highly controversial speech, which will inevitably prolong the Debate, but he has gone away without even waiting to hear the leading Member of the Opposition. Although he has left the Bill in most capable hands—

Mr. STANLEY

My right hon. Friend would, I am sure, much regret it if the House felt that he had been in any way discourteous, but he had to leave in order to fulfil a most important engagement in connection with public business. He proposes to return to the Debate as soon as he possibly can.

Mr. DENMAN

Ministers really ought to begin to realise that the House of Commons is itself an important engagement and that these Debates do matter, and, if they continue to treat the House in this way, they are obviously reducing Debates to futility. If legislation is to be dictated by understandings with people outside, and no attention is to be paid to the arguments of hon. Members, the House is reduced to a futility and Debate to a farce. Having made that preliminary protest, I propose to answer point by point the arguments that he made. As to the opposition of employers, we have had no evidence from beginning to end that there is any opposition other than that mentioned in the report which has been quoted. We have here had very interesting and sincere opposition on theoretical and other grounds, but no one has said this is going to interfere with specific industries. The opponents have not been able to give any example of injury to industry.

When we are asked to take this report seriously, I wish hon. Members would read it. There were two minority reports as well as one majority report. One minority report advocated the new Clause which has been moved from the Front Bench opposite; the other said, "Do nothing," and there was a great mass of members—23—in between who advocated something more than this Clause that we have before us. What weight must we attach to the objection of the employers? Now the document is not written in the language of ordinary business common-sense. It is not even dated, and its date governs its real value. Obviously, this was written some time in mid-winter, when business was in a very anxious condition and when such recovery as we have now enjoyed was, perhaps, an almost unbelievable dream. The people who write this are obviously writing in a dither. They talk of a moment when the whole energies of the nation should be concentrated on matters of urgent and paramount importance and which does not permit of public effort, time and money being devoted to matters of this order. That attitude is a protest against the whole Bill from beginning to end. If they had had this Bill presented to them they would have said, "For this country to embark on legislation of this nature, strikes us with a complete sense of unreality." It is the language of a business man who has had a dinosaur looking into his window and has not quite recovered. But the Government, having introduced the Bill, having taken public time and public energy in a manner that would have alarmed these employers, what ground have they for refusing this Clause? We are making a mistake in talking of the opposition of industry, because we are led to think of industry as, perhaps, some of the basic trades, something that is well organised, something that is big and vital to the nation. The businesses concerned in this are not the great industries. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last even made a mistake in including shops. Shops are excluded. This minute Clause deals with only a limited number of subjects. I welcome the return of the Home Secretary. I said in his absence what it is unnecessary for me to repeat, but I deplore that he should have gone away after his speech. If the Government continually treat the House in that way and regard other matters as of more importance, they will reduce Debate to a farce.

Sir H. SAMUEL

I must explain that I was called out on a very urgent Home Office matter which I had to attend to at once.

Mr. DENMAN

The practice is growing, and other things are regarded as more important. However, I must not go back on this old point. The real point about this opposition of employers is that we have not had evidence of it at all and, when you come to consider the employments that are involved, they are small, unregulated employments. We are mostly concerned with employers of a few boys here and there. Just consider the headings that are given in this report. The most offending occupation is that of an ice cream seller. Are we, to use the language of these five employers, to picture the ice cream vendor squaring his shoulders to the economic blizzard and saying, "Do not stop me employing a boy for 70 hours, because I am so busily engaged. I am concentrating on matters of urgent and paramount importance. An attempt to interfere with my employés and lessen their hours of labour strikes me with a complete sense of unreality." The thing is a farce.

I come to the second point, the need for inquiry as to the effect on employers. We are told that the majority in their report made no adequate inquiry and that that must be made before legislation is passed. What sort of inquiry does the Home Office imagine is possible? Do they propose to send a man to Leeds to hunt about and discover what each ice cream seller is doing and for what hours each van boy is engaged? In these unregulated trades your only effective method of inquiry is precisely this by-law method. We had abundant experience of that in previous times. What happens under by-law procedure? The local authority, with considerable knowledge of local conditions to start with, formulates a draft scheme of by-laws. It is discussed in public and the local people have a chance of seeing in what way their interests are going to be affected. They are then submitted to the Home Office, which may demand a public inquiry.

Those who recollect the process of bylaw making in pre-War days will remember some rather famous inquiries. There was one conducted by the then Mr. Buck-master and another by Mr. Chester Jones —important inquiries. Of course, the employers had every chance of putting their whole case. Then if, as the result of that inquiry, the by-laws are approved, the committee makes recommendations and the Home Office still has the ultimate voice. The Home Office can approve, disapprove, send back for amendment or do what it likes. That is a sensible method of inquiry, to table the draft regulations and then see how they fit. There is no other possible way of inquiring into unregulated trades. To suppose that we must delay by-law making in order to have an inquiry into unregulated trades is sheer nonsense. It is said that to have contiguous areas with different by-laws creates confusion and offends the aesthetic sense of certain Members who want everything to be neatly planned. Of course, by-laws must differ, because circumstances differ in different areas. The circumstances of Luton are not the circumstances of Leeds and the circumstances of Birmingham differ from those of Bedford. The method of by-laws in unregulated trades is precisely the method that suits the circumstances. What you lose in tidiness you more than make up for in the elasticity and adaptability of the machine.

One other reason is put forward why we should wait before we take any action, which I am sure had its influence on the Committee upstairs, and that is the recent Convention at Geneva. It really is amazing that the Home Secretary should talk of that Convention as if it was still under consideration and as if it had any relevance whatever to the Clause. The very same day that the Under-Secretary was speaking upstairs our representative at Geneva was moving Amendments. He stated that— Article 3, as submitted by the committee, would make it impossible for his Government to accept the Convention either now or probably for a long time to come. His amendments were rejected and Article 3 adopted as it stood. Two days later, on 30th April, the following speech was made by our representative: During the discussions on this Convention, the British Government put in various Amendments with a view to making it one which, while leaving more favourable conditions in the various advanced countries untouched, would have made it possible for the majority of countries to ratify easily and quickly. Having regard to the fact that leaving the Convention as drafted will not lead to early ratification in a large number of countries, I wish, on behalf of Sir Malcolm Delevigne, to say that we shall abstain from voting. The Convention was then carried by something over 80 votes to 1 and the matter was ended. What is the use of coming to us when the Convention which our representative has refused to sign has been agreed to, and saying that we must wait until our legislation can be fitted into this? More than that, the Convention, even if we were ratifying it, would not deal with this Clause. It deals primarily with children under 14, but it deals with elder children in two respects. Article 5 deals with young persons in respect of occupations dangerous to life, health, and morals. There is nothing with regard to hours. That is the regulation of dangerous occupations. Article 6 deals with street trading. Otherwise, there is no relation between the Convention and the Clause under review. What possible case is there for delay on account of a convention which we have not signed and shall not ratify, and which in any case does not touch the question under consideration? Really, if the Government cannot supply better arguments than that, they had better start again.

8.0 p.m.

As to the pledge, the House knows precisely what it is. It is a pledge that there shall be legislation when the industrial situation improves. Of course, all of us accept the bona fides of that pledge. No one has cast any doubt on it. But we all equally know that any pledge is given subject to the contingencies of Parliamentary life. We have to consider a pledge's value in relation to the framework of our Parliamentary activity. It has been mentioned that there are political uncertainties, that the same Government might not be here to fulfil that pledge. I confess that I should regard a change of Government as a bull-point in favour of the pledge, because I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill would be within the Cabinet in any change of Government, and would be a source of additional help to us. So that I cannot say that a change of Government would be a very serious objection.

Then there is the question of time. We have had a description of the conflict between different Departments to get time for their Departmental Bills, of the pressure upon the Government and on different Ministers that one Bill should have precedence of another. What chance can we have in advance of being assured that this Home Office Bill will have any precedence in that struggle? The Home Office has had rather more than its share of legislation during this Session. I can picture the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade and other Departments coming forward next Session with very strong arguments that they should have what Parliamentary time is available. I am afraid that any assertion that we shall have a prior claim would need to be very specific to make us feel that the pledge had any really great value.

I must ask the House to recollect that our view of this matter is not a theoretical view. It is a view based on experience. If hon. Members will kindly look at the Order Paper they will see that I have put down a new Clause suggesting an amendment of the Employment of Children Act of 1903, so that by-laws might be made for children up to the age of 16. Members who are acquainted with this subject may have felt that that was a somewhat strange Clause which did not fit well into the Bill, and indeed that there was a somewhat archaic flavour about it. They would have been right. That Clause is a museum piece. It is a Clause which was in the Bill introduced in 1913 by a predecessor of the Under-Secretary. That Bill was not a casual Bill introduced just to see how it fared. It was in the King's Speech, a very meagre speech, with few Bills mentioned. But that Bill had rather pride of place. The date is 10th March, 1913. and this is the sentence in the King's Speech: You will be invited to give renewed consideration to proposals for the further restriction of the industrial employment of children. That was in March, 1913. In the following month the Bill was introduced, and the first Clause of it I have put on the Amendment Paper. Since then we have been striving to get this provision year after year, with what success we all know. What happened in 1919? I was led into quoting another person on the Second Reading, and I said that the Home Office produced the Bill then. I cannot trace that Bill, but I can trace what was said about it. The present Secretary of State for India, on 7th July,, 1919, asked the Home Secretary when he intended to introduce legislation dealing with the hours of young persons between 14 and 18 in all occupations not covered by the Acts relating to factories and mines. Mr. Ward, replying for the Minister,, replied: I hope it will be possible to introduce the Bill shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1919; col. 1427, Vol. 117.] Two days later Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck asked whether the Home Secretary would as soon as possible introduce legislation regulating the hours of employment of young persons between the ages of 14 and 18, in accordance with the promise given to the House. Mr. Shortt, the Home Secretary, replied: I hope it will be possible to introduce the Bill Shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1919; col. 1848, Vol. 117.] Piedges and hopes and good intentions have surrounded this subject for 20 years. No one can say that I am not content to get something at all substantial in a matter of this kind. I have put on the Paper, as an Amendment, a proviso to this new Clause which precisely carries out the pledge that we have been given. I suggest in the proviso that this Clause shall not come into operation until a resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament declaring that the industrial situation has sufficiently improved. [An HON. MEMBER: "When is that?"] That is a matter for the House to declare. The pledge of the Government is that it will legislate when that condition arises. The difference between legislation and resolution of both Houses of Parliament is profound. Take a simple example. It is conceivable that under improved financial conditions a Budget might be introduced that would materially improve industrial conditions; you might in June get an improved industrial situation arising out of the Budget. What Government is going to introduce a Bill in June? But half a day would get a resolution through. I shall be told that it is an unusual device to put in a proviso of this kind. I agree that it is unusual, but the circumstances of the day are unusual. The whole case is that this Clause must not be put into the Bill because we are still in a condition of crisis.

Mr. STANLEY

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead in any way regarding my pledge in Committee. I was particularly careful there to specify that I could make no promise as to the method, because very considerable controversies still exist. The Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is thinking about now does not fully carry out the pledge that I gave.

Mr. DENMAN

I admit that the Under-Secretary did suggest the possibility that in course of time he might find a better method than this for dealing with the matter. But I take the risk of that; I am quite willing to take the risk. Nothing in my Amendment precludes the Under-Secretary from pursuing his researches into better methods and legislating accordingly; but he will recollect that he suggested that this method would probably be found to be the best. He knows that there is a very strong and preponderant feeling in favour of this by-law method. What, then, are we to think of a pledge that is given only on condition that it is not made easy of fulfilment? All that I am doing is to make it easier for the Government to fulfil what they say and what we know they want to do. We make it easier for them because it is important that we should put every facility before this Government. What remains the difference between us? It is not one of desire or intention, not even one of time, because my Amendment accepts the view that the present moment is not the most appropriate, and that we may agree upon an appropriate time a little later. The sole difference is that we have found an effective method of implementing a pledge. It is a difference which may mean only a month or two in time, but on the contrary our experience shows that it may mean several years.

How is the House going to treat this question? Those who previously served a National Government will remember that there were times when it was necessary for one section to take a definite stand; with every desire to cooperate and help they were aware that if they did not take a definite stand on a single point, their whole power for usefulness, their whole function in the cooperative effort, would be gone. That occurred during the War once or twice, and it occurs now. No one who belongs to the Liberal party, or to the group to which I belong, can support the Government on this occasion without being false to his political past. That really is indisputable. To Conservatives I say that there are two strains of Conservatism. There is the strain which we have had very ably expressed, the strain that believes in the absence of regulation and talks of any Clause like this as being grandmotherly, and objects to it as an interference with the ordinary processes of the free individual. But there is another strain of the Conservative party, the strain that is more represented in this House now that in our lifetime before, the strain that is connected most prominently with the name of Lord Shaftesbury and with that of Disraeli. That is the body of Conservative opinion which recognises social injustices, and is determined not merely to acquiesce in redressing them, bat to take a lead in redressing them. That section must be with us to-night if it is to be true to its great tradition, if it is not to falsify its own past. We are attempting no more than to preserve the reputation of the National Government in this respect, and to save it from a course which will certainly lessen its reputation in the country.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I wish very briefly to explain to the House why, though I am in favour of the principle of the limitation of hours of work for young people and certainly do not belong to any category, real or supposed, of the Unionist party that dismisses such an idea as grandmotherly, yet I do not see my way to vote for the proposed new Clause. My interest in this question is not new. Some years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in two succeeding years a Bill in substantially the same terms as the proposed new Clause was introduced in another place by my Noble Friend's other half, and as I was very anxious that the Government of which I had the honour to be a Member should adopt this proposal, as a first step, up to the age of 16, I got leave from my Ministerial chief to discuss the terms of the Bill with representatives of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour. What I found myself up against was just this difference of opinion between Departments, as to what was the best method of limiting the hours of children and young persons, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned in the Standing Committee and has referred to again this afternoon.

There are strong opinions in favour of the national treatment of this question, and I believe that it was because differences of opinion were not reconciled that nothing was done at that time, and those differences have not yet become reconcilable. So long as those differences exist it is an administrative impossibility to ask the Government to embody one method in a Bill and then to thrash out afterwards whether it is really the best method or not. What we have to do is to urge the Government to lose no time in having the question thrashed out as to what is the best method, whether a completely national one, or a completely local one, or something which is a blend of the two. If they can get the question settled, we shall look to the Government to fulfil the pledge—which, I am sure, is sincerely meant, and which has been given in Committee, and repeated here this afternoon —that they will deal with the matter when the industrial situation improves. In spite of what has been said, I realise how difficult it is to move in this matter at the present time in view of the industrial conditions.

I agree that a large number of children are not involved. When we take the young persons in the country as a whole, the burden on one firm or one industry may not be great, but, when we are in an economic crisis such as we are still experiencing, I think that industry might justifiably say that this is not the moment in which to be making things more difficult even though it might not be to a very large extent. My Noble Friend said that this argument had met every proposal that had been made for the limitation of child labour. If I may correct her, I do not think that Parliament was doing anything to limit the hours of children in general between the ages of seven and 13 as long ago as 1803. When the question was being tackled 20 or 30 years later by Lord Shaftesbury and other reformers—

Viscountess ASTOR

What about Sir Robert Peel?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Sir Robert Peel introduced the first Act which limited the labour of children, but his Act referred only to one class of children, namely, children who were boarded-out. He did not attempt to limit the hours of children—that had to come much later—employed in factories. [Interruption.] Whatever period it was, the country was not passing through such a crisis as we are experiencing to-day which is without parallel in our history. We had never previously known what it was to have 2,500,000 unemployed persons in our midst for something like a year and a half, following upon 10 years of a severe unemployment problem. We cannot ignore that fact, however much we may wish the health, strength and education of the children to be protected. For these reasons, though I am in thorough sympathy with the wish, at the earliest possible moment, to do everything we can to protect young persons from excessive hours—and I am not in the least afraid of being called grandmotherly on that account—I cannot see my way to support my Noble Friend in the proposed Clause.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON

I wish to recall the House to what I consider to be the realistic way of regarding this Debate. As far as I can see, the merit of the Clause is not the real question which we should be discussing. There are a few hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), to whose Toryism I should like to pay a tribute, who really think that the less legislation we have the better. I will read to the House what the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said in Committee during the fourteenth day's proceedings. After talking about the pledge of the Government, he said: Personally, I believe that probably the method contained in this Clause is the best one. I think that most hon. Members thought that that satisfactorily settled the question of this particular Amendment. The real attitude of mind of the hon. Gentleman, if I may hazard 'a guess, was to be found a few lines above, when he said: The whole world, ourselves included, is on the brink of a precipice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 28th April, 1932; col. 527.] As we are on the brink of a precipice it is hardly worth fighting over a controversial matter at such a perilous and disastrous time. If that is the case, I am ready to agree that the whole Bill is a trivial matter compared with the awful crisis which is facing us, and that the Amendment, if you like, is a trivial Amendment. Although I think that that is a reasonable attitude, it is not the real point at issue at the moment. The point at issue is what I may call Government morality. The Home Secretary, in a speech which must have caused him as much pain to make as it did us to listen to it, said that there was a hypothetical body of employers who would oppose the Bill. They certainly exist in certain numbers. He said that a tacit pledge had been given to that hypothetical body that the Bill would not materially be altered in Committee. I suggest to the House and to the Government in all seriousness, that if this body of hypothetical opposition had existed in any large numbers with any power or real principle behind it, it would certainly have come to the Government and made them give that pledge, and it would not have remained a tacit pledge. I conclude by making a really serious appeal to the Lord President of the Council to give us some satisfaction on this matter. If he feels that the honour of the Government is bound up with any material alteration of the Bill on the Report stage, I beg of him with all the sincerity at my command to let us have a free vote on the subject.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD

Personally, I disagree with some of the replies to the statement of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench immediately after the Home Secretary stated that the Home Secretary was acting practically under the dictation of a body of employers. That was about the most fantastic statement one has ever heard in this House, and one has heard a great many. It had neither foundation in fact nor any foundation except the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LOGAN

It was the statement by the Home Secretary.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

It is within the recollection of the House that it was directly opposed to anything that the Home Secretary had said. Just in the same way, I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) has gone much too far in suggesting that the Home Secretary stated that there was a tacit pledge. But the Home Secretary undoubtedly did suggest a new constitutional doctrine.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON

I was asking the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

The hon. Member interrupted the Homo Secretary and asked him whether he was pledged to a hypothetical body.

Mr. NICHOLSON

No, a hypothetical pledge.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

The Home Secretary undoubtedly enunciated a new constitutional doctrine which goes very much further than anything ever enunciated before in this House. One of the weaknesses of Parliament has been that for the last 60 years, with the advance of the franchise and the growth of democratic government, the power in this country has drifted slowly but surely into the hands of the Executive. I do not think we have ever before had the doctrine propounded in this House that was propounded by the Home Secretary, that if the Government of the day introduce a Bill it must be taken that they will not accept an Amendment, even if the majority of the House desires it. I think that is a constitutional doctrine which goes very far indeed. Perhaps I have not stated it quite sufficiently. One ought to add that, according to the Home Secretary, the Government must be taken as saying that they will not accept an Amendment unless they give notice to the country that they are going to do so before it is discussed in the House. That is carrying the power of the Executive very much too far, and if it were carried much further it would soon result in a dictatorship rather than Parliamentary government.

I do not support the Clause from any sentimental reasons. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) seemed to think that everyone who supported the Clause was doing it from purely sentimental reasons.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

Well, that was one deduction. Certainly the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) said it in so many words. I support the Clause as a matter of business. I think the Clause is economically sound and that the present system is economically unsound. That is why I think that the argument that we are in a difficult time of crisis and that therefore one should not move, is a wholly bad argument. If a thing is economically unsound, it is much more urgent to remove it in a time of crisis than at any other time. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that if we carried this Amendment we should abolish the jobs. That means that the jobs are at present wholly uneconomical jobs and that the work could be done much more economically in another way. If we take the hon. Member's speech and couple it with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, who pointed out that the supply of juvenile labour was decreasing, we shall not have any great difficulty, because the superfluous work will be done in a more economical fashion and we shall have a full complement of labour for the work, which is natural and ought to be done by juvenile labour.

It cannot be economical to have young persons of from 14 to 18 years of age working up to 12 hours a day. It may be said that the job does not require much intelligence and that it can be done without the exercise of any intelligence at all. There is no such job in the world. There are jobs which are humdrum. The more humdrum a job is the more necessary it is that you should not so prolong the time as to make the humdrum more effective. There can be no doubt that the mechanisation of industry is resulting in jobs becoming and appearing to be more irksome, and they will be more irksome if you spend an undue amount of time upon them. The whole principle of the Bill is for the purpose of trying to reduce the amount of juvenile crime. One of the symptoms which is evident to-day is that young people are not thrown on the labour market and out of employment, but that they are leaving jobs of their own accord, because they find them irksome. A great deal of that may be and I believe is a symptom of laziness on the part of young people, but there is something else.

What is the position of a young person employed to-day for 12 and in some cases 15 hours a day. For that kind of job he may get 15s. or 16s. a week, and he has no leisure if he is employed in that way. With the advance we have made in the regulation of hours of labour he knows that his father, if he is working, is getting a man's wage and has the whole of his evening to himself. Is it not likely, is it not natural, and is it not ordinary human feeling that a boy will think that he is being put upon when he has to work from 12 to 15 hours while his father earns a man's wage for working at the outside eight or nine hours? That makes the work appear more irksome to him. I have no sympathy with those who try to help boys to shirk work or with those who want to smooth things so that a boy shall have no difficulties. A boy who has no difficulties to encounter is never worth anything when he grows up. Therefore, I do not want to smooth the path in that way, but I do think that this House ought to move away unnecessary difficulties and things which make it perfectly natural that the boy should feel his position to be irksome. For these reasons, I support the Clause as one which is true economy, leading to efficiency and not to waste, which some of those who really ought to have lived in the early days of the last century think it is.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I was surprised at the speech of the Home Secretary in reply to the Debate. His argument might have been used legitimately by the Labour Government in the last two or three years. He argued that the Government could not make this into a contentious Measure, and that it had to be passed as a non-contentious Measure. I should have said that if there is a Government in a position to tackle contentious legislation it is the present Government, because whatever backsliding there might be it is impossible to conceive that the Government could not secure a majority for any reasonable proposal which it made. The proposals in the Clause are reasonable from every point of view, and I fully sympathise with them. If I might be presumptuous enough I should like to mention my early days and the long hours of labour that I had to put in as a youngster. There was no question of the limitation of hours when I was an apprentice. I had to work very long hours, including long hours at week-ends and holiday times.

When everybody else was holidaying I had to work, night and day. I know what hard work means upon the frame of a youngster and upon his outlook in life. The hours that I had to work cheated me of many things I would have liked to do, but I was prevented from doing them because I had not the time to attend classes. That was a considerable hardship, because it threw me back on my own untrained endeavour. Whatever may be said for the self-taught man, he loses a great deal of time because he lacks the common knowledge where he can go for his information. He does not go there straight. He is too haphazard. His mind becomes a collection of 'bits and bobs. He may be fairly well read, but there is no distinctive line which he can adopt. That is a very bad thing. Surely, in the present state of industrial development, with so-called rationalisation and the growing development of power and of science, we should aim at the abolition of these cul-de-sac occupations. As long as we allow boys of 14 to 16 and 17 years of age to work on jobs which only-leave them in a cul-de-sac we shall always have in this country a tremendous amount of untrained adult labour unfitted for any occupation. As the power of man becomes more concentrated we should direct our efforts to ridding the world of the untrained worker. That is a very germane question; and it is becoming a very big question indeed. I saw the other day that scientists had recently discovered how to split the atom.

Mr. LOGAN

We are splitting it now.

Mr. WALLHEAD

But this is the mighty atom, and it is a most tremendous thing. I suppose that physicists cannot tell where it may ultimately lead. If the scientific outcome is such as has been predicted, then we are arriving in sight of the time when by merely pressing buttons and pulling levers we shall be able to perform all the work of the world. It gives tremendous promise so far as laborious work is concerned; it is a promise of an entirely new life. Surely it is wrong if by mechanical processes we are going to make work easier, to increase the number of untrained workers. I shall support the new Clause with all the power I have. The last Children Bill was introduced in 1908; 24 years ago. Surely it is time that we took another step forward. We have had a quarrel between two Noble Ladies as to when this legislation was first initiated. It began in 1803, so I am informed. One hundred and thirty years ago we began to deal with the labour of little children, and we are dealing with it yet, and shall be dealing with it in another 10 years' time if the Government have their way. The Government have no prospect in view. In any case, it does not propose to do anything until the time is ripe, until the industrial situation has been eased. It is astonishing the number of excuses that can be found when you do not want to do a thing.

My mind goes back to the time when it was proposed to reduce the hours of work of adults. The proposal was, of course, opposed; the time was not ripe, industry could not stand it. The industrialists of that day brought in a learned gentleman to prove that the thing was economically unsound and impossible. He was Mr. Senior, an Oxford person. He was called in to prove that you could not take one hour from the eleven without destroying industry, because you would take away the profit hour. He said that work was split up. The first two hours went for rent, the second two hours for something else, another hour for something else, and so on throughout the whole, but he said, that the eleventh hour, that is the hour when profit is made. If you take it away no profit will be made; the industry will be busted and your Last state would be worse than the first. The calamity mongers have always been there pointing out that scientifically it never pays to do anything. It does not pay to move.

Now it is said that industry cannot stand it. What industry cannot stand this? What kind of productive industry is going to be affected by this proposal? No productive industry of any kind is affected; they are all of a distributive character, more or less pokey little jobs which are being done by boys; carrying parcels because lazy women cannot carry their own. If shopkeepers adopted the principle that customers should carry their own parcels under a certain weight many of these boys would be wiped out. They are wasting their time in any case. These occupations lead to nothing, and at a time when the Government can do these things because they have the power it is no use saying that we must wait for Geneva. If we do, this is another little thing which will be lost amongst a whole lot of things for which we are waiting from Geneva. Let us do it here and now. Let us take this step forward, which will be of use and value to the children and to the industrial life of our people.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM

I am sure that there is an earnest desire on all sides of the House for legislation of this character, but I cannot vote for the new Clause in its present form. This matter was fully discussed in the Committee and the Government gave a pledge which I feel it is my duty to quote to the House. The Under-Secretary of State said: I assure the Committee that the pledge I give now, and I have the authority of the Government for saying so, is not given in any way as a purely delaying pledge, but it is given seriously and sincerely; and it is the. intention to implement it. I make no promise as to the method, because there, I think, considerable controversy still exists which requires clearing up. Personally, I believe that probably the method contained in this Clause is the best one, but that must depend upon the facts which we elicit from this inquiry. Later on, the Under-Secretary said: In all probability a Parliamentary opportunity will be given in the very near future for the discussion of legislation of exactly this character. Finally, I assure hon. Members of the complete sincerity with which I have given the pledge which I have given, and I ask them, by accepting that pledge in the spirit in which it is given, to put the Government under an obligation, which I believe is the surest and the quickest way of reaching the aim which hon. Members have in view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 28th April, 1932.] That is a definite pledge. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said that it would not be right for the group to which he had the honour to belong to vote for the Government. I entirely disagree with him, and I can assure him that the group to which I have the honour to belong will vote for the Government. The Division in the Committee on that occasion showed that there were nine for the new Clause and 29 against and that decision in my opinion ought to be accepted by the House. The Government lost no time in introducing this Childrens Bill and they have done their best in Committee to facilitate its passage into law. Why hamper the prospect of the Bill by seeking to introduce a new Clause of this character? I suggest that it would be both an act of grace and good tactics to withdraw the proposed new Clause, and allow this question to be dealt with, at an opportune time, and from a national standpoint. I am not in favour of leaving this matter to local authorities. I would prefer that it should be left to the House of Commons to deal with it as a national question so that there would be no further doubts about it.

I, personally, accept the Government's definite pledge and I would appeal to the Members of the House generally to do likewise. No-one wishes to deprive young people of recreation and the pleasures of life but there must be a time when young people have to face up to the realities of life. In these days young persons are given many educational opportunities. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who give much of their time to education committees, and we pay heavy rates and taxes so that our young people, who have the ability and the desire to do so, can go in for scholarships and can rise from the elementary schools to the university. That proves that we are not unmindful of the interests of the rising generation. I know lads who began life working with me on the land who have since risen to occupy positions of great importance in our Empire and in all parts of the world. That shows what can be achieved by young people starting early, and under proper conditions—not under conditions of slavery, but under conditions such as the Government propose to introduce in the new Bill which has been indicated.

Boys must begin early to learn a trade or profession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said he would like to see the day when young people did not commence work until the age of 21. What would become of our young people if they did not enter into a trade or profession until the age of 21? What would become of our rising generation and what would be the effect in our Empire? That is a poor argument. I am prepared to trust the Under-Secretary. I have been in close touch with his family for over half a century and I have never known a member of the Stanley family let anyone down yet. They have always been prepared to take their part in any sphere of life where there was hard work or national duty or a duty in defence of their country. I ask hon. Members to trust the Home Secretary and the Undersecretary in this matter. I ask them to wait patiently and I am sure, as the Under-Secretary said in Committee, that when the proper time comes, a Bill will be introduced dealing with this question on national lines which we can all fully and conscientiously support.

Miss HORSBRUGH

In supporting the proposed new Clause I wish to say at the outset that I do not in any way distrust the word of the Under-Secretary. But what we fear is that events may be too strong for what we believe to be the real desire of the Under-Secretary and the Government to deal with this problem of young persons in unregulated trades. The majority of speakers to-day have agreed that the idea in the new Clause is a good one, and the discussion has come down to the question of the expediency of introducing it at this time. I think there was only one speaker who did not want any legislation of this kind at all. A good deal has been said about employers, and I should like to say here and now that I do not believe that the majority of employers are against a scheme such as is proposed in the new Clause. It has been, I think, inferred that all employers, or the majority of employers, wish to make young persons work for 12 or 14 or 15 hours a day. I am perfectly certain that such is not the case. There is one point which has not been brought out yet and which is important, and of the truth of which I have assured myself. In many cases, young people are employed in industries with no very clear idea as to the hours during which they are supposed to remain at work. The employer himself has no idea of how long those young persons are kept at work. Because there is no illegality involved in keeping a young person at work for an additional hour or two, that young person is kept on far longer than the employer is aware of, and I think that that is the case with the majority of the employers of these young persons.

A van boy, for instance, goes out with another person who is in control of the van. Perhaps the person in control has not, during the early part of the day, got on with the work as he might have done. Perhaps he has not gone the rounds which he ought to have gone and, unknown to the employer, that van is out a great deal later than, ordinarily, it should be out and that boy is kept at work for very long hours. There are many cases such as that and I do not believe that it is the fault of the employers. These cases arise because we have left these unregulated industries in their present condition. I believe that a majority of employers would welcome some restrictions. I know it is pointed out that the minority report was signed by five employers, but, having read and re-read that report, I cannot think that those who signed it would be anxious to see children working long hours. What they urge is that attention should not be diverted to such legislation from urgent national issues. But is it not worse to divert our attention from urgent national issues to this Bill and then, perhaps within a year or two, to bring the whole subject up again? That would only waste more time and as we have the Bill before us now, is this not the time to include this experiment, of which I believe a majority in this House approve.

Many people have criticised the proposed new Clause on the ground that it does not go far enough, but the reason why it goes such a little distance is, again, a reason of expediency. The scheme suggested in this new Clause could, I believe, be operated at very little expense. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) said that we ought to have no extra expense and that we should have regard for the ideal of economy. Why, then, introduce the Children Bill? We have got extra expense in the Bill. Then we have been told that on this Bill we should not deal with employment. Why, then, have Part IV of the Bill, consisting of 15 Clauses, which deals with employment? Personally, I would rather see the whole scheme held up, than have a Bill to help the children and young people of this country go through, without touching this glaring example of the want of regulation in the employment of young persons between the ages of 14 and 18—in effect telling the people of this country that at the moment we cannot or we do not want to regulate the employment of those young people.

As has been said, this proposal does not affect any productive industry, and I do not believe that the local authorities who will make these by-laws will find it necessary to incur great extra expense in the matter of inspection. The chief criticism, therefore, is that the new Clause only goes part of the way. But, since it goes such a short way, would it not be a good chance to make this experiment and to try the value of the proposal in this way before proceeding to a national scheme, as has been done in regard to other matters. In this Bill, in regard to other matters, we have made into national regulations many by-laws such as those relating to street trading. I think it would be wise in the particular circumstances of this case, to try the scheme in a small way and, when we come to the legislation, which I know the Government desire to introduce, then we shall have some ground upon which to go in deciding the best method of procedure.

Mr. CROOM-J0HNSON

This is a question which has excited the attention of social reformers for a very long time, and it is a very great pity that many of us who believe that this problem ought to be tackled will be driven, if this Clause is persisted in, into voting against something which is obviously sincerely aimed at meeting a problem which ought to be met, but there are good grounds, from a purely practical point of view, why this Clause should not be pressed at this stage of the Bill. The problem is one which demands careful consideration, practical consideration, and national consideration, and the Clause seems to fail on each of those grounds. It suggests that local authorities should be empowered to make by-laws. It is a commonplace that the views of local authorities differ enormously as to what lines their local legislation should follow. There is no doubt that from any point of view some local authorities do not desire to legislate in respect of a great many of the matters which are left to them to undertake, and we should find not merely one local authority having one set of regulations as compared with the local authority by the side of it, but a third local authority next to that again with no local regulations at all.

We must have regard in particular to those young people whose occupations take them, not only into the area of one local authority, but into the areas of many local authorities upon the same day, and I wonder what would happen, if this Clause were passed, to tile van boy who is intended to come within the purview of the Clause if, in his own area, a particular day in the week was prescribed by a particular by-law as the particular day upon which all van boys were to get a half-holiday, and he was whisked at the tail of his van 60 miles away into another district, where he was promptly stopped by the local policeman and told that the half-day off there was not Wednesday but Thursday. That is a practical consideration, and you will have these young people probably stopped in doing their work upon days when they are entitled to work in their own areas, or perhaps working in circumstances in which they are in one area breaking the local by-law and in another area, a considerable distance away, they are possibly in complete accord with the local regulations.

9.0 p.m.

It seems to me that this Clause takes no account at all of the conditions under which people work in these days, with the means of transportation which are afforded to all of us, and to suggest that we should leave this to a haphazard, indiscriminate determination by local authorities, some of which may be extremely enlightened, some of which may be careless, and some of which may not use the by-laws at all, is simply to make for a state of the most complete confusion. The Clause demands careful scrutiny and consideration in order to make it plain that in protecting the young people we are not causing injustices to them. We must also consider, although this is not a consideration which I should place first, the implications of legislation with regard to those who employ the young persons. After all, we must not be unfair even when we are trying to protect children in blind-alley employment, and it seems to me that to introduce, I will not say a controversial Amendment—because many of us have a great deal of sympathy with its object, though I believe some of us are not prepared to go to the full extent of this Clause in some of its details—but to introduce such a Clause at this stage of the Bill so that if it should become the law of the land we should find afterwards that there were difficulties and inconsistencies and that the matter had not been properly digested, will not really in the end achieve the object which the Noble Lady desires to achieve. Nothing can be worse, in my view, than to introduce remedial legislation which is intended to meet a real difficulty if afterwards, when that legislation gets into the courts, it will be a subject of controversy and probably of laughter because it has not been properly and conclusively worked out.

The idea that to reject this Clause would mean that we should be postpon- ing a consideration of blind-alley employment for a long time is one which, after all, rests upon the House itself. I hope that it is not going to be for an indefinite time that private Members of Parliament will not be able to introduce legislation, and with so much feeling in favour of an examination of this question, if the Government by any chance, through any accident, were able very quickly to implement the pledge which the Under-Secretary of State gave, and which I am sure will be implemented, we should have the remedy in our own hands.

There is something upon which I may perhaps sound a word of caution. The argument of the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite was really to this effect, that as you come to each thing you can say, with regard to every industry or employer, "This little thing will not hurt anybody." I suppose that that was the argument which was used to every single animal upon whose back the last straw but one was placed, and there is just a danger that if that sort of view is permitted, we may go on piling up these "unconsidered trifles" until in the end we arrive at the last straw which may endanger the camel's back.

I shall not give my vote this evening on this question, however, upon any such consideration. I suggest to the House that this Clause is one which needs examination and that it would be a fatal error to pass it in its present form. Obviously there is neither time nor opportunity to consider it carefully and well, and, as one who is fully alive to the difficulties and dangers of blind-alley employment, I appeal to the Movers of the Clause to withdraw it and to leave us to discuss the whole matter fully and properly at some more convenient season.

Mr. BRIANT

I am sorry to intervene at this late hour, but this is a subject on which I have spent a large amount of time, and as I am the sole representative on these benches who has spoken on this Clause, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two. At the last meeting of the Committee upstairs I was filled with apprehensions, which have been increased rather than diminished by tonight's discussion and, I am sorry to add, toy the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. What are the obstacles to be overcome before we have this legislation, according to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary? So far as I understand, we are to have a long inquiry into blind occupations and the attitude of industry to the question. Then we have to disarm the opposition of the trades. Then we have to wait for Geneva. Then we have to wait until the industrial prospects are improved. Then we have to wait until the Departments are agreed. When we have got over that five-barred gate this Parliament will have ended. We do not seem to have elicited one promise which holds out any real hope of legislation for many years to come, I feel this the more because some Members have spoken as if this were a new question. It is no new question and has been debated in the House before. So far is it not new, that the Department, I understand, had drawn up a Clause to deal with it. If it is a question of method, those who are supporting this Amendment are not keen on a particular method, but whatever method is adopted, we are told that it is wrong, and at whatever time it is introduced, we are told that it is the wrong time.

We are not a bit nearer helping these lads and girls than when we started the agitation 15 or 20 years ago. I feel this very strongly. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) spoke about sentiment moving the House. It is not sentiment for boys and girls to go to work. This is a question of recreation, education and health. An hon. Member spoke about education facilities, and the next moment he told us that he would vote against the proposed Clause, which would give boys and girls facilities to attend the very classes he wants to provide for them. What is the use of priding ourselves on our schools and evening classes if we say in the same breath that we will take care that the children cannot attend them? Then hon. Members talk about preparing boys and girls for trades and professions early in life. Do hon. Members know what these boys and girls work at? Boys hanging behind vans all day long, and boys at hotels all day long. For what profession and trade are they preparing? Still worse, there are boys working in cinemas. This House got very agitated over the cinema Bill, and some hon. Members were moved by something I cannot understand to vote against it because attendance at a cinema for two and a-half hours on Sunday would do irreparable damage to the morals of the persons attending. These boys attend not only on Sunday, but every night of the week; they work 70 hours a week at the cinemas, and yet some people hold up their hands in horror at the effect upon an adult of being there for two and a-half hours on Sunday.

Some of us are absolutely disheartened over the treatment of this question. I am the more disheartened because the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, who conducted the proceedings in Committee with such sympathy, in their hearts believe in this Amendment. What pressure impelled them to oppose it, I do not know. I ask the Government to give us something more, if it is only a notification of the introduction of some Clause when the Bill goes to the other House. An hon. Member opposite said that the proposed Clause would not touch many boys and girls. That is not the fact. The last report of the juvenile advisory committees showed that out of 116,000 boys, there were at least 88,000 who would come under this new Clause.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

The point I made was not that it would not touch so many juveniles, but that it depended on by-laws being passed.

Mr. BRIANT

The hon. Member said that subsequently, but he gave the impression that it would not cover that number of children. I have here up-to-date cases that have been produced by the highest authority of the terrible hours that are being worked by juveniles, but I will not read them. This House has in the past passed various Acts to prevent cruelty to animals. An employer can be prosecuted for over-driving and over-tiring his horse, and yet he can overwork a boy or girl as long as he likes, and no law can touch him. I am sure that the House, whatever may be its component parts politically, would not, if it had a free vote, hesitate to risk the opposition of a few selfish employers. It is greatly to the credit of the House that we have had no real opposition from employers to this new Clause. We have been told that the House was elected to put the nation on a sound economic basis, but does the economic basis of this country depend on the employment of children for 70 or 80 hours a week? If it does, the basis is rotten enough in all conscience.

I believe that the House is in the main anxious to do something, and I hope that even now we may get some promise that all the desires and hopes of those who have spent half a life in the service of the children are not to be entirely thrown to the ground. I trust that we shall have some hope and promise that these children, many of whom are nothing but little slaves, will be freed from the bondage which is every bit as great as that which oppressed masses of humanity 60 years ago. I hope that all our hopes are not going to be drowned, but that we may have some promise that in the immediate future something will be done to protect these young people who are unable to protect themselves. It is the bounden duty of this House to intervene and look after them and see that they have the chance in life which most of us have had and most of our children have had.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

The House is in a very serious difficulty to-night; in fact, in my comparatively short experience, I do not think that I have ever seen it in such a difficulty. The great majority of Members who have spoken have spoken in opposition to the Government, but the Government have made no sort of reply on the merits of the question. As some of my hon. Friends know, I am not predisposed towards this new Clause in many respects, but to an impartial onlooker the Home Secretary's speech could only mean, "It would be improper for me to take off the Whips, but by all means vote me down."

Sir H. SAMUEL

No.

Lord E. PERCY

I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, but it was almost the only coherent interpretation that one could put on his speech. He said that he did not go into the merits of the question at all, but after all, there are merits. I have been surprised at the extent to which hon. Members on both sides of this question— I will not say on both sides of the House—have made statements which I cannot reconcile and have ignored what seems to me to be the vital issue. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) has said, for instance, that in 1933 there will be fewer children issuing from the schools than ever before. I am afraid he has got it wrong. From 1933 onwards there will be more children issuing from the schools than there have been in the past five to 10 years. Whatever may be the merits of the rest of his argument, the premises on which he based it were really fallacious.

Why is it we have got into this mess— because it is a mess? I am sure I am expressing the opinion of most people in this House when I say there are two things which the House hates: one is delay and the other is patchwork. In this Debate we seem to be driven to a choice between vague delay and unsatisfactory patchwork, because the new Clause of my Noble Friend the hon. Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is, as I think she will realise, a piece of patchwork. It may be the best we can do at the moment, but it is a piece of patchwork. We have got into this position because no Government for the last 10 years—and I do not deny my own partial responsibility for it—has seemed to think it worth while to inquire into this question at all. What did the Home Secretary do, according to his history of the case? I ignore the sins of his predecessors; I am one of them and I accept my share of the blame.

The Home Secretary, in giving an account of his own spiritual pilgrimage through this question, said that when it first came up he waited for the report of the Advisory Committee on Unemployment. That committee was set up in 1926 not as a super-committee, outside the Government, to lay down the law from Sinai, but as an Advisory Committee to advise the Government on the current problems of juvenile employment. But the same thing always happens to these committees, by whatever names they are called. The Minister is too busy to let them advise him; they get too jealous of the Minister to wish to meet him—they fear they will be suspected of being "wangled" by the Minister; and they go off into a corner and fight among themselves. The result is the kind of report we have at the present moment. Does any hon. Member believe that if the Home Secretary and the Minister of Labour had really consulted with the committee, if they had treated them as a gentleman treats his advisers, we should have had all the employers going in one direction and all the trade unions going in another? If that Committee had been treated really as an Advisory Committee, if the Government had let them into the secret of what they were thinking, of what they hoped to do, would there not have been a unanimous recommendation from that committee eventually? But the one thing a committee is never allowed to do is really intimately to advise a Government. It can only go off into a corner and issue a kind of declaration, and there is always a majority and a minority report.

It is because of waiting for some committee to report that we have never made up our minds about this question of blind alley employment. I do not know very much about this question, nothing in comparison with my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. F. Briant), but he will agree with me that there is a real problem here. Take the case of horse-drawn traffic in London. It exists at the present moment solely because, under union agreements, we allow boys on horse-vans and insist on men attendants on motor vans. We know that horse-van work must inevitably entail very long hours for van attendants. If there have to be two shifts of boys on horse-vans in order to cover that number of hours, probably that will be the last straw that will knock the horse-van off the streets altogether, and a good many of my hon. Friends who try to get past horse-vans when they come in taxis to this House will heave a sigh of relief and say, "So much the better." But it would mean a dislocation of a London industry, on which a good many adults depend for their living, and such a dislocation at this moment would result in unemployment, and is to be avoided if possible.

That is the kind of question of merit which is involved in this problem, and the worst way to deal with the problem, and the most out-of-date, is by way of a local authority by-law. It was a good enough way in old days, but I implore the House to forget a little about ancient reminiscences, which in this Debate have gone back over 100 or 150 years. We are living in 1932 and we are dealing with the local authorities of 1932, and a local authority of to-day is a very different thing from the local authorities to whom we first gave authority, years ago, to make by-laws. Why did we give those local authorities power to make by-laws? Because they were intimately in touch with the local situation, they were not bureaucratised. The members of the local authority were individually and intimately in touch with events. To-day we have local authorities-which are infinitely more bureaucratised than the central Government, and with infinitely less power than the central Government to get a real mobilisation of the opinion of employers and employed on any question. The real focussing power in industrial affairs is in the central Government and not in the local, and in dealing with this question of blind alley occupations, in dealing with the issues I have sketched, we shall be adopting the very worst expedient if we take this old, worn, out-of-date expedient of the local by-law.

Do stop putting more and more duties on overworked local authorities, who are long past being able to discharge their present duties efficiently. That is the first point in the gospel of public economy and of social reform in this country, and the sooner hon. Members realise it the better. Local authorities are very good for certain purposes, but if we load on to them all these new duties they will be increasingly inefficient. That is the reason why I say this House has a choice between two things of which it is heartily sick, and which it was elected to get away from—patchwork on the one hand, and delay on the other. Personally, I hope the Government will still make a statement, not a statement merely from the recondite constitutional doctrine point of view, such as was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), who pointed out the new constitutional doctrine of what the House may or may not do, and not a statement that they are going to consider the question, but a definite statement as to what steps they propose to take to make up their minds and to ascertain the facts upon a subject upon which they seem, at the present moment, if I may say so with respect, to know nothing whatever.

Mr. STANLEY

I hope the House will excuse me rising now to reply to this Debate, but hon. Members will no doubt have in their minds the fact that we still have a great deal of business to transact on this Bill, and a great many important points to discuss which they will wish to consider at a reasonable hour. I think no one can complain of the length of the Debate, which has touched on a subject of so much importance and which has been, I think, from various angles, a guidance to the Government. There is, however, one point which I want to clear out of the way at once, a point made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) who, having made that point, disappeared from the House. He tried to read into the speech of my right hon. Friend some admission that in the action we were taking to-night he had been dictated to by the employers. The right hon. Member drew a rather mysterious picture of visits of employers and consequent dictation, of the type with which he was so familiar in those years when he was in office. I may say at once, of course, that the picture was wholly unjustified. There was no suggestion of that kind at all.

If I may re-state to the House the point which my right hon. Friend put, and which, I think, is a very fair one, it is as follows: There is no doubt whatever that this proposal of the Noble Lady arouses, as we have seen to-night, a considerable amount of controversy and opposition not only from employers but among Members inside the House who have at heart the interests of industry. My right hon. Friend's point was that when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved, the Bill was without this provision in it. In moving the Second Reading I gave the reasons why we had omitted it, and it was in those circumstances that those who are not particularly interested in the rest of the Bill and who would have been violently opposed to such a provision as this, took none of the steps which are open to the Opposition to any particular proposal and did not oppose the Second Reading. The point my right hon. Friend made was not that we had given any pledge to the employers which he was unable to break, but that it would not have been fair to those Members of the House of Commons whose opposition had been lulled by the declaration of the Government that they were not including this proposal, if, when the opportunities for them to oppose it had gone, the Government were to come down and say that, after all, they would now accept it. That was the point, and I think it was one of substance.

9.30 p.m.

I am not one of those who join in the chorus of sneers which comes from some quarters of the House whenever the opposition of employers to any proposal is mentioned. I do not say that the employers are always right, nor do I believe that their opposition to any Measure is always justified, but, at any rate, I prefer, if we have in this House to pass any piece of legislation, that it should be passed with the co-operation and with the agreement of the employers rather than in the teeth of their violent opposition. I am not surprised if, at a time like this, when employers are harassed as they are, having behind them years of bad trade and seeing in front of them the prospect of ruin, that on a matter of this kind they should take a point of view which to those of us who are, perhaps, not so closely connected with the rise and fall of business, and whose fortunes perhaps are more firmly established and more widely secured than theirs, may seem perhaps rather hysterical and over-cautious. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) tells the House that there is no opposition in industry to these proposals, and bases that on the fact that he has not received any communication from employers against it. When he has been longer in the House he will realise that no one ever writes to you when you do something that one wants you to do. It is only when you have done something they do not want you to do, that you get letters, and no opposition has manifested itself against these proposals because they have never been included in the Bill. I venture to suggest that their inclusion would be followed very soon by evidence of the opposition which does exist. We were assured by the Noble Lady at the beginning of this Debate that this was a non-controversial matter. I wonder if anyone who has sat through the four and a-half hours of the Debate will be prepared to support her in that now?

Viscountess ASTOR

They have mostly been for it.

Mr. STANLEY

I would remind the Noble Lady of the promise she gave to the Home Secretary. I see another celebrated lady is reported in the newspapers this morning to have given an undertaking.

Viscountess ASTOR

That may amuse the House, but it does not amuse me.

Mr. STANLEY

Perhaps that lady will keep her promise better than the Noble Lady.

Viscountess ASTOR

I hope she will keep her promise better than some Ministers do.

Mr. STANLEY

In the course of this four and a-half hours' Debate there has existed a very great controversy about this proposal, and it is not a controversy which can be classified at all as simply a controversy between those who are for or against this question in principle. There are here at least three different schools of thought, all expressed forcibly. There is one school of thought which is against any restrictions of this kind. I do not say I agree with those who hold this view but they feel that these matters are best not dealt with by legislation, and that restrictions of this kind may tend not to improve the conditions of those who are employed but to worsen them by depriving such persons of their employment altogether. Then there is another school which says that this method is not a suitable one in which to deal with this subject. A very strong feeling has been expressed against the local option character of this Clause. This is not the first time during the last few weeks that I have come across that dislike. They point out that even if these powers are genuinely and sincerely used by local authorities,, if they are unrestricted by any over-riding decision, they may lead to astounding anomalies, and you may have people in houses on opposite sides of the street whose sons are under completely different restrictions. They say therefore, that however great their desire may be for some restrictions of this sort, they are not prepared to accept them in the form in which they are put before the House.

Finally, there is the school of thought expressed largely by hon. Members opposite which says that this Clause really is nothing but eye-wash, that it means nothing at all, and that there is no reason to believe that any local authority will really avail itself of the powers which are given,, and which are purely permissive and in no sense obligatory. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) really brought the House up against a point which hon. Members have got to decide. They have to choose between patchwork and delay, and between accepting a Clause which nearly everybody does not want to see passed in the form in which it appears on the Paper. Hon. Members must realise that we are not on the Second Reading of the Bill now, but on the Report stage, and this proposal has to be accepted or refused. I do not think there is anyone, not even the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), who would say that there is not some particular in which this Clause should be altered. When we see the large number of exceptions, and realise that this new Clause does not touch the question of employment in shops, it will be seen that we are being asked to accept something which may be, from the point of view of those who have brought this new Clause forward, better than nothing at all, but it cannot be looked upon as being a final contribution to a permanent advance on this subject.

If the House accepts this new Clause, hon. Members will be using this opportunity to put upon the Statute Book something which nobody, in their hearts, believes is the last word in dealing with this problem, and it must be recognised that in doing so they are probably excluding the possibility of future legislation on that point. Something has been said about delay, but where is the delay? Here you have a proposal which applies no compulsion upon a local authority at all, and which leaves it entirely, first of all, to frame regulations which is not an easy task; and, having framed those regulations, they have to submit them to the Home Secretary for approval. It has already been pointed out that in the only case where similar powers, and very much more restricted powers, were given to local authorities, the by-laws have not yet come into existence. Can anybody believe that the postponement of a decision by the House of Commons on this matter for a short time is really going to delay, not the placing of some eyewash on the Statute Book, but something which will be beneficial to the lives of young persons for whom hon. Members have expressed so much concern.

The pledge which I gave and which seems to have caused so much derision in the House was given in respect to a Measure which was not an offspring of my own but a Departmental problem, and I have the authority of the Cabinet to give in the most serious manner a pledge to deal with it. I said in Committee, and I repeat it now, that I believe that in more normal times the pledge I would have been allowed to give would have been a much more definite one. I said that I thought that the Government would be prepared to introduce legislation on lines of this character dealing with this point, but I could not pledge them to introduce it next year. I did at the same time remind the Committee, as I remind the House now, that the days of Parliamentary time are so occupied that one cannot give a definite pledge. We are living in times of crises. We have no idea what emergencies may arise before the period which I might otherwise have promised. We have no idea what legislation this House may be called upon to pass to meet those emergencies as they arise, and how can we, in those circumstances, give to the House a definite pledge of that kind unless we are prepared to run the risk, when the time comes, of having to say that such and such an emergency has arisen, and we ask to be relieved from our pledge. The pledge I gave was one which depended Upon industrial improvement and Parliamentary stability. We know that, as and when that improvement occurs, then the fear of a Parliamentary crisis and pressure of other legislation disappears, and the Government can keep their pledge.

I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings that the interval is not going to be one which will be wasted. This proposal has been talked about a great deal in the last few years, but I do not think it has been very much thought about. Somebody put forward a Bill on these lines 10 years ago, and since then nearly every year somebody has put forward the same Bill. I think it is time that we gave serious consideration to the question as to whether this is the right Bill, or whether there are not better ways of approaching the problem. I ask the House, with all seriousness, to reject this new Clause. The pledge which I have given on behalf of the Government is not meant to delay restrictions which we believe ought to be imposed, and the delay which will occur, if any delay does occur, in legislation will be delay rendered essential by the present national situation. That delay we shall make as short as possible, and in that period of delay we shall make certain that the legislation, when it is presented to Parliament, is not a piece of patchwork, but something which deals with the problem as a whole, and in a permanent manner, and something which will not be unworthy of a place on the Statute Book.

Mr. JANNER

I do not propose to take up the time of this House very long, but I think a little more consideration should be given to some hon. Members who have been sitting here for 4½ hours awaiting an opportunity of placing their views before the House on a matter which they consider is one of vital importance to the youth of this country. With the greatest respect to the Undersecretary, we who are concerned with this new Clause are not satisfied that if there is any further delay it will serve any useful purpose. Years have elapsed since this question was taken in hand, and those who are concerned with those employed in certain trades feel that the time is ripe for dealing with the matter whether it be by patchwork legislation or in any other way, and that the arguments brought forward against patchwork legislation are the very arguments which hitherto have been used to introduce patchwork legislation in other parts of the Bill. Those who have been so much concerned about this legislation have not raised any point in regard to some other provisions which already exist in some of the Clauses of the Bill. How can it be consistently said that you are not agreeable to the local authorities dealing with this question, when you have already given the local authorities opportunities of dealing with similar questions? The machinery is there, and it is a disgrace that the House at this stage should not be prepared to vote for a provision for the amelioration of the lot of those who cannot bo heard themselves in the House. [Interruption.] It is rather discomforting to find that, when one is attempting to speak on behalf of a number of people who cannot speak for themselves, and have not the opportunity of coming to the House to show themselves and their discomfort, this method should be adopted in order to suppress the argument which is essential for these people's welfare.

I represent in this House a constituency which is the centre of a considerable amount of social and philanthropic effort. There are few organisations in London which have not some kind of centre in that constituency for the purpose of assisting the young people, and the older people also. Their efforts are directed to providing people with healthy, recreative and educational opportunities. Why should these youths between the ages of 14 and 18 be deprived of the opportunity of using their leisure time in that manner, and of having the advantages that other children have? No effective argument has been put forward against placing this Clause on the Statute Book. We cannot afford to wait longer; we must accept what we are able to get. If this be all that we can get, let us take it now that we have the opportunity, and let us ask the Government to realise that this is a vital matter which requires the immediate attention of the House.

Mr. LOGAN

I do not think that anyone need complain of my rising to speak, for I have waited for 5½ hours in order to do so, and, whatever interruption may occur, I shall not be bullied by it. This discussion would not have arisen if the National party or the supporters of this proposed new Clause meant exactly what they say. There was a clear proposal before the House in another Amendment, which was rejected, and we are forced to accept this present Clause, with all its entanglements, as the lesser of two evils, since half a loaf is better than none, and it is necessary that some provision of this kind should be included in a Children Bill. [Interruption.] We are told on reliable authority that at least 300,000 boys are going adrift who would make good Members of the House of Commons if they could get here, because their manners would be at least as good as the manners of some of those who are interrupting to-night when one is endeavouring to express one's opinions.

This tragedy of child life exists in every city, and we have to consider in this Bill bringing in an Amendment which will provide for the proper regulation of child labour. I will give one instance. A boy who was working in the Liverpool Council library, on being discharged at the age of 16, because they do not keep lads on after that age, had to go into a blind-alley employment, and he became a van lad. He had to go out delivering furniture for a house in Liverpool, and, at three o'clock in the morning, the van, having left at 10 the day before, pulled up on the road, and that boy had to sleep in the van. Everybody knows that,' in the delivery of goods to and fro, the child life of our great cities is being used to provide cheap labour. This House, instead of quoting what happened in 1803, should have regard to the fact that in 1932 there are these 300,000 boys who ought to be dealt with, and it is nonsense to say that it is not possible to deal with a matter of such vital importance.

The Home Secretary put forward the proposition to-day that a British House of Commons has not the right to deal with an Amendment of this kind unless there has been consultation with employers on the question of labour. I never heard such ridiculous nonsense. Both from a legal and from a constitutional point of view as to the powers vested in membership of this House, no one has any authority to say that an Amendment should not be accepted. We are here to legislate. I would ask, what is wrong in this proposed new Clause? The acceptance of a 48-hour week would only deal with a little bit of the problem. We are told that the first movement in regard to child labour was made in 1803, and we are told that in 1932 we are getting more progressive. If only this little bit be accepted, by 2033 more progress still will have been made, if there is then a House of Commons to deal with these problems. The Government are now faced with a serious position and, from the point of view of national economy and of saving the wastage of child labour, they will be wise to accept the Clause. Morally we have a right to legislate in this regard.

I pay the best compliment I can to the courtesy and tact of the Under-Secretary, but we are not here to accept statements from Under-Secretaries. We are not here to accept statements from Home Secretaries. We are here to get what legislation we can on to the Statute Book. We should be very unwise, seeing that there is a division in the national party, if we did not try to make it wider still. I want to be as honest about it as it is possible to be. I like to see the division and I hope it will grow wider and wider until we know exactly the opinions of those who are in the House. I hope, without any great pressure being brought to bear on the Under-Secretary, a young man who has far to go—and he will go far in the House—he will be able to see the wisdom of the great division of opinion in the House and will take his courage in both hands, and will agree to legislation which will meet with the general approval of the parents of these children throughout the length and breadth of the land. What is the question of the making of a few shillings a week in comparison with the ruining of the bodies and souls of so many thousands of the young in our great cities? The great wastage of life ought to appeal to everyone in whatever part of the House he sits. I hope the Government will have courage and will accept the Clause, distasteful though it may be.

Mr. MANDER

I shall not detain the House long, but I think some attention might be paid to those who have been trying to co-operate with the Government in the Committee and who still desire to give them their support on this most difficult matter. We have had an extraordinary Debate and it must have been a very uncomfortable one for the Government. Some of us in the Committee were persuaded to reject this Clause by the very specific and persuasive pledge given by the Under-Secretary, which I am sure he meant in all sincerity. But certain things that have been said in the Debate have considerably weakened the pledge as he gave it. One of the attractions that he held out was that there would probably be legislation in connection with the draft convention at Geneva, and he used these words: In all probability a Parliamentary opportunity will be given in the very near future for the discussion of legislation of exactly this character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 28th April, 1932; col. 528.] 10.0 p.m.

We have heard the words used by Sir Malcolm Delevigne, the British delegate, when the draft Convention was being discussed, that the British Government were not likely to be able to ratify for a long time. A long time is a very different thing from the very near future, and that considerably weakens the attractions of the proposal that the Under-Secretary held out. Furthermore, I obtained this information at Question Time to-day from the Minister of Labour that, in connection with the draft Convention, the British delegate abstained from voting, the Convention had not arrived in England yet, or had not been considered, and the Government had not made up their mind upon it.

Mr. STANLEY

I did not make the pledge contingent on the introduction of legislation of this kind. I said we should have to legislate on the question and that would provide an opportunity, but I did not, and I do not now, make the pledge contingent on the ratification of the Geneva Convention.

Mr. MANDER

I appreciate that, but I think there is some substance in the point I am making. Could not the Government, in view of the Debate to-day, and in view of the overwhelming expression of opinion, not from the Liberal party —I do not suppose the Government cares much what the Liberal party thinks—but from the ranks of the Conservative party, who quite sincerely desire to see a Measure of this kind included in the Bill. bring it before the Cabinet between now and the time when the Bill goes to the House of Lords and consider whether they cannot include something of this kind to meet the obvious wish of the majority in the House? If they cannot do that, cannot they do the minor and lesser thing and accept the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), which takes us a step forward and which is not inconsistent with any pledge that the Government have made. I hope they will take into consideration the most difficult position in which some of us have been placed of having to oppose a Clause which we are strongly in favour of and will see how far they can go, between now and what take6 place in another House, in meeting the views of this House.

Question put, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."

Division No. 177.]	AYES.	[10.2 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)	McGovern, John
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grundy, Thomas W.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Batey, Joseph	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Maxton, James
Bernays, Robert	Hicks, Ernest George	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hirst, George Henry	Nathan, Major H. L.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Briant, Frank	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge)	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George.	Horobin, Ian M.	Price, Gabriel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Rathbone, Eleanor
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Janner, Barnett	Salter, Or. Alfred
Cove, William G.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Cowan, D. M.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)
Daggar, George	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Dennian, Hon. R. D.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Fdge, Sir William	Leckie, J. A.	Withers, Sir John James
Edwards, Charles	Leonard, William
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Logan, David Gilbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Lunn, William	Colonel Goodman and Mr. Groves.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Mabane, William

NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Elmiey, Viscount	Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Atholl, Duchess of	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Lumlay, Captain Lawrence R.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Fermoy, Lord	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fox, Sir Gifford	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Gillett, Sir George Matter man	McKie, John Hamilton
Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley	Glossop, C. W. H.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Maitland, Adam
Blindell, James	Goff, Sir Park	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Bossom, A. C.	Goldie, Noel B.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Gower, Sir Robert	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Boyce H Leslie	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Martin, Thomas B.
Brocklebank C. E. R.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Brown Ernest (Leith)	Grimston, R. V.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Burgin Dr Edward Leslie	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Milne, Charles
Burnett, John George	Hanley, Dennis A.	Mitchell, Harold P,(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Hartland, George A.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Moreing, Adrian C.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Morrison, William Shephard
Cizalet. Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	North, Captain Edward T.
Clarke, Frank	Hornby, Frank	Nunn, William
Clayton Dr. George C.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ormiston, Thomas
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)	Palmer, Francis Noel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Patrick, Colin M.
Cooke, Douglas	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Pearson, William G.
Craven-Ellis, William	Jamieson, Douglas	Petherick, M.
Crooke, J. Smedley	Jennings, Roland	Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bliston)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaonsb'ro)	Ker, J. Campbell	Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Kimball, Lawrence	Rankin, Robert
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Kirkwood, David	Ray, Sir William
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Reed, Arthur c. (Exeter)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Knebworth, Viscount	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Dickie, John P.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Remer, John R.
Donner, P. W.	Lees-Jones, John	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Drewe, Cedric	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Levy, Thomas	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Rosbotham, S. T.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Ross, Ronald D.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 198.

Runge, Norah Cecil	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynomouth)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Salt, Edward W.	Soper, Richard	Train, John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Scons, Lord	Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Selley, Harry R.	Stevenson, James	Weymouth, Viscount
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Stones, James	Whiteside, Borras Noel K.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.	Strauss, Edward A.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Womersley, Walter James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Skelton, Archibald Noel	Summersby, Charles H.	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Slater, John	Sutcliffe, Harold
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Thorp, Linton Theodore	Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.

CLAUSE 1.—(Juvenile Courts.)

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words: who have not attained the age of sixteen years. This is an Amendment which will prevent the Bill having the effect of prohibiting the trial of persons between the ages of 16 and 17 in other places than juvenile courts. I move the Amendment in no spirit of hostility to the Bill, but with the idea of trying to save the juvenile courts. As one who Believes profoundly in the juvenile courts and in the advantage that they have been, I am exceedingly anxious that nothing should be done to weaken the power for good of those courts. It is quite true that during the Committee stage an Amendment was moved to raise this principle, but there were considerable technical objections to that Amendment, because it might have had the effect of destroying a considerable number of the Clauses of the Bill which are an undoubted advantage in the administration of justice where you are dealing with persons over 16 and under 17. On the other hand my Amendment has only one effect, and that is that it deals with a place of trial of persons who are under the age of 17 but are over 16. The purpose of the Bill is to drive all those persons into the juvenile court, and, save in exceptional circumstances, to prevent charges being tried against those persons in the ordinary court.

The whole idea of the juvenile court was that you should get young people out of the atmosphere of the ordinary criminal court, because it was thought that, their introduction to a court being their first association with the law, it was unwise to acclimatise them to the atmosphere of an ordinary criminal court and to the details that they might hear in that court. You have taken away the similitude of a court by preventing even the officer of the law being in uniform. So that you get in the juvenile court a totally different atmosphere from the ordinary court, and you therefore prevent the person of tender years from being contaminated in any way and of course from being brought into contact with older criminals. One idea is that the spirit of hero worship which is so strong in young people might, if they heard some of the stories in the other court, lead them to imitate the people tried in that court.

I move the Amendment because, in my opinion, when you begin to raise the age of the juvenile you tend to destroy the juvenile character of the court. Age is, and must always be, an arbitrary method of fixing a division between those who are immature and those who are mature. If you fix the division too high, the result is to destroy entirely the character of the division which you wish to make. It is, of course, all a question of balance and of maturity, and we all know at the present time that there are many young people under the age of 16 who are quite mature, and certainly could not be regarded as such delicate material that it would be likely to be contaminated by a police court. On the other hand, one realises that the proportion of that sort of material below the age of 16 is small compared with the proportion of the whole numbers of those who are under 16. If you raise the age even a year you are bringing in a number of people, almost every one of whom is fully mature. It is all very well to say, "They are only 17 years of age and you ought to try them in that way." As a learned judge said not very long ago, referring to another Statute, Parliament has tried to retard the age of maturity. Parliament may have very great powers, but there is one thing Parliament has not been able to do, and never will be able to do. It cannot alter nature, and it cannot retard maturity.

If you throw into the juvenile court people who are mature, you are trying to treat them as though they were little children. The purpose of our courts is not merely the purpose of a welfare centre. It is, even as far as the juvenile offender is concerned, to instil into the offender a wholesome respect for law and order, and you cannot instil that in people if you make them think that offences of a criminal character, which are all offences against society, have merely to be dealt with as though you were dealing with them in the family circle. What is the effect upon those older people? Take the question of mixing. You are to keep the young people from these courts because they may be contaminated, but is there any worse contamination for young people than a bad youth? Is there any worse form of hero-worship than that which you are likely to get among young boys of somebody who is a, little older than themselves and has dared to defy all conventions and all law? There is no surer method of getting the worst form of hero-worship than mixing these two classes, which is one of the things you are doing if you bring people of from 16 to 17 into the juvenile court.

There is one thing which the Amendment does not do. It does not alter the Clause which gives power to send persons up to the age of 17 to approved schools. But, as an illustration, every one will realise how very carefully that Clause will have to be administered, when you arc dealing with people between 16 and 17, so that you do not send to an approved school for offenders somebody who is likely to contaminate and destroy the whole effect of the school, and a very easy thing it would be to do. But when you are dealing with a court and bringing numbers there, you are dealing with a very delicate question. What will be the effect? As I have said, the offender between 16 and 17 will be brought into the atmosphere of the juvenile court, which is a totally different atmosphere from the ordinary courts administering justice. He will get the idea that what he has done is something quite different from the crimes which older people have committed. Those who are dealt with in juvenile courts are dealt with in a totally different way, and one way which is meritorious and excellent is the use of probation.

The extension of the use of probation has been very largely due to the way in which probation is made use of in. the juvenile courts. One of the features of the juvenile courts has been the extent of the use of probation. But in many cases of those who come before the courts between the ages of 16 and 17 probation has already been tried to an extent which is almost making probation a mockery. There is nothing worse than the continued use of probation, and if you are going to increase the age of those who go to the juvenile court from, 16 to 17, you are going to incur the danger of an extension of probation so that instead of its being remedial it becomes mischievous. It is a characteristic of probation; it is a characteristic of the very best probation officers that they hate to part with the young persons who are under them for the purposes of probation. They hate to admit failure, and the atmosphere of the juvenile court is such as to continue the probation. When you have had a young person under probation say, twice, the idea of continuing the probation on the commission of a third, fourth or fifth offence is not only farcical but definitely-detrimental to the person on whose behalf you are exercising the probation. One of the things which has given rise to a great amount of perturbation during the last few years has been the continuance of probation in that way.

The Under-Secretary was good enough to refer in the Committee upstairs to some remarks that I made some time ago in the House with regard to the question of this continued probation. It is misreported, unfortunately, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee. What I called attention to was a remark by one of our greatest judges, that not only is the continued use of probation harmful, but that the very idea of committal for trial very often brings home to the young offender, more than anything else could, the gravity of his offence and makes him seriously realise, for the first time, that he has committed a criminal offence. You are very much more likely to get the committal of people for trial from the ordinary courts in the case of those over 16 and under 17 than you are likely to get from the juvenile courts. For the last few years, practically speaking, we have had committals for trial of those under the age of 16 to a very small number indeed. The number of persons dealt with for indictable offences before juvenile courts was nearly 12,000 in the years 1929 and 1930, and out of that number charged with indictable offences in 1929 only 19 were committed for trial and in 1930 only 38. If you extend the age to 17 you will never get a committal for trial of a young person under the age of 17. Anyone who had any experience of dealing with young persons between the age of 16 and 17 years who are committed for trial and who are guilty of offences will realise that the juvenile court is the last place to take them with any hope of bringing home to them the seriousness of the crime they have committed.

The objection that has been made to the Amendment is that it is dragging people under the age of 17 into a police court when they are merely charged with trivial offences. An impression was given to the Committee upstairs that young people who came before juvenile courts were in the main charged with trivial offences, that the proportion of such offences as riding a bicycle without a light or on the footpath was such that these were really the matters which had to be dealt with and that real serious criminal offences were only occasional incidents in juvenile courts. That is a wholly wrong impression. It is quite true that there are a number of cases of offences with regard to riding bicycles. Juvenile courts deal with something like 1,000 to 1,200 cases, but if you take the year 1930 you will find that in the juvenile courts there were 13 cases of burglary, 213 cases of house-breaking and 1,388 cases of shop-breaking; and for anyone to suggest that these are trivial offences is to suggest something which is quite a reversal of the true picture.

Mr. KIRKW00D

Can the hon. and learned Member tell us what they stole? He mentions house-breaking and shop-breaking.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

The position of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is a little difficult. Of course a boy, or anyone else, who gets into a house does so for the purpose of stealing just whatever he can lay his hands upon. In some cases it is the money out of the gas-meter or something valuable that is lying about. The whole seriousness of the offence, which I should have thought the hon. Member would have recognised, is the breaking into another person's house with the intention of stealing that person's property. It does not matter whether he gets away with a small or a large amount, the offence is equally serious. There are people, I hope the hon. Member is not one, who seem to think that if you only get 6d. it is a minor offence and that if you get £10 it is a serious offence. I leave that type of person to his own reflections. With regard to the class of offence, I find that in 1929 there were 11,361 indictable offences before juvenile courts and 12,400 non-indictable offences. In 1930 there were 12,198 indictable offences and 12,464 non-indictable offences. No one can say that even among the younger ones the offences were in the larger proportion of a trivial nature; they were not. And as the age gets higher they become still less.

10.30 p.m.

Can it be for the good of this country that you should give to those who are matured and developed the idea that the crime of dishonesty or a crime of violence is something so trivial that it must be dealt with in an almost apologetic way, practically by saying do not do it again, you shall be put under the care of so-and-so for so long a time; you have been very naughty and you shall be put under the care of the same person again? Only the other day I saw a calendar on which out of about 30 persons there were six between the ages of 16 and 17. Those six had been dealt with more than once by juvenile courts. Four had been bound over no less than four times in succession for separate offences. The continuation of that kind of thing is not going to teach respect for law and order. It is going to teach complete contempt for law and order and for the administration of the law. It is going to lead young persons into paths of dishonesty rather than prevent them from following those paths. The work of the juvenile courts can be made effective and magnifi- cent work if directed in the right way, but once you extend it to those who are of mature age you make it an instrument of harm rather than of good.

It has been said, "Why drag these young people there if the cases are only bicycle cases and so forth?" There is power under this Measure to deal with certain cases of young persons under rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor with regard to applications for licences and so forth. Why should not the Lord Chancellor be empowered to make rules with regard to the trial of non-indictable offences which proceed by way of summons in the juvenile courts, leaving the indictable offences, which usually start by arrest, to be dealt with by the ordinary courts in the ordinary way. I think that would meet the criticism which was made in Committee on this point. I do not wish to detain the House longer as I know there are other points of view to be expressed on this subject, but, in the interests of the juvenile courts, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CADOGAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I was responsible for an Amendment in Committee intended to produce the same effect as this but the Undersecretary had no difficulty in convincing me that it was faultily drafted and that its effect would be far different from what I intended. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Geaves-Lord) has framed this Amendment so that it is limited in its effect to the purposes of the juvenile court and if it had any other and wider effect such as to alter the definition of "young persons" so as to apply it to all the other purposes in the Bill I would not support it. But I am anxious that the age limit in the juvenile court should be left where it is for the reasons lucidly stated by my hon. and learned Friend and for other reasons as well. I do not wish hon. Members to misunderstand me. I support this Amendment entirely in the interests of those young offenders between 16 and 17 and in the interests of the successful operation of the juvenile courts.

Those who devote much of their time and activity to new methods of treatment of young offenders cannot fail to have been somewhat perplexed and troubled on the question of what are really efficacious methods of dealing with what I may call the older young offenders. After an experience of some years, I have come to some definite preliminary conclusions, although in this instance I fear to tread where the Home Secretary has rushed in, but the conclusions at which I have arrived have not been shaken by the arguments of those who have opposed them. I maintain that classification is the very basis of the new method of treatment of the young offender, and if any hon. Member should not examine this Clause carefully he might think this was a progressive step, raising the age in the juvenile courts, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a retrograde step; it is reactionary from the new method of treatment of the young offender; it is the very antithesis of classification; it is amalgamating those who ought to be segregated. You are going to send to the juvenile courts those who will produce a detrimental effect upon the atmosphere of those courts.

The Government might say that if you leave the age as it is, the offenders between 16 and 17 will be amalgamated in some other courts with those from whom they should be segregated. My rejoinder is that I am content that the system of classification should be carried as far as you like to carry it, but I invite the attention of the House to the question of welfare of the juvenile courts. So far you have classified your juvenile courts appropriately enough. The conduct of its proceedings is suited to those who have not yet arrived at years of discretion, who are not of an age to realise their obligations to their fellow citizens, and who are not capable of profiting by the kind of deterrent which more sophisticated youths too often require. If hon. Members would study the records of those youths who have been convicted between 16 and 17, they would find that the vast majority have already been given innumerable chances. They would find that in the records of the Borstal institutions most of them have been placed on probation over and over again—I saw a case only recently of a youth who had been placed on probation nine times—and they have passed through juvenile courts already and have been to approved schools. They have been given these chances, and the older they are, the more chances they have had and therefore the less likely they are to react favourably to that particular kind of treatment which the juvenile court provides.

Another question upon which I should like to touch is that, while I appreciate that there are, unfortunately, a very great number of those between 16 and 17 years of age whose mental age is less than their physical age, who are mentally retarded, yet I contend that those are not appropriate cases for the juvenile court, because they are just the type that commits the class of offence, the unsavoury type of offence, which wants keeping out of the juvenile court. I need not point out how very detrimental is the association of the very sophisticated youth with young children in the precincts of the juvenile court. That is too obvious. Let me touch on the psychological aspect of the question. The vast majority of these children are those who have rubbed shoulders with the world for a considerable time, who have had responsibility at a tender age, who have developed quickly, mentally and physically, and who are perfectly aware of their rights and also, through their experiences, have become cognisant of their duties.

To adjust the balance between leniency and severity with youths of that type is one of the most difficult problems which face those who have to deal with them. There is a good deal of good in these youths that has to be extracted. There are great misgivings in the minds of those who have to carry out these new methods; they may not be as efficacious as some people imagine. Statistics are not in our favour; I wish they were. I know that it is quite easy to make statistics your servant, but there is nothing at present after some years, certainly during the last seven years since the Departmental Committee reported, to prove that they have been an unqualified success. I do not know if the House will consider as fantastic an argument which I advanced in Committee. Hon. Members will call to mind that by a recent Statute the age of marriage was raised to 16. It is possible that you might have one who is a child in law sent to a juvenile court, and it might be discovered at the last moment that he must go to the quarter sessions because he was a parent. We cannot have parents tried in a children's court. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but there is something in it, and nothing would be more calculated to bring the law into contempt than a situation of that kind.

I am prepared to concede that there is a limited number of those between 16 and 17 whose cases may be brought to the juvenile court, but I maintain that they are in the minority. I base that dogmatic statement on many years of experience. It is not necessary for me to go into that experience in detail. I had an instance only the day before yesterday. I was talking to a great number of these youths in a Borstal institution, and I asked their ages. Of all those who told me they were between 16 and 17, I could make out only one whom I thought was a proper case for a juvenile court. Therefore, I suggest that a more rational method of procedure than that which is suggested by the Government is to make the minority and not the majority the exception to the rule. The Government scheme is that you should start by sending all boys between 16 and 17 to the juvenile court, and then you can send those to quarter sessions or some other court who are not considered appropriate cases. I maintain that that is doing the thing the wrong way round. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the Amendment gives magistrates power to send to juvenile courts cases that they consider appropriate to be sent.

I do not derive my knowledge of this subject from the Olympian heights of the magisterial bench. I derive it from the more humble and intimate association with the problem of the young offender. There are many who lay down the law on this subject whose only knowledge of the young offender is a brief view of him across the well of the court. I derive my knowledge from discussions with house masters of institutions and with these youths themselves. There comes a point, perhaps, when one feels possessed of knowledge that entitled one to give an opinion. It may be right or it may be wrong. In this case I unhesitatingly tell the House that I believe the course the Government is now taking is as ill-advised as it is ill-informed.

Mrs. TATE

I rise strongly to support this Amendment. In doing so, I appreciate that it is of a controversial nature, I also appreciate that one of the main provisions of this Bill is the extension of the jurisdiction of juvenile courts to the age of 17, and that this was the recommendation of the committee for dealing with juvenile offenders, but I would like to point out that that committee issued its report in 1927, since when both the nature and the extent of juvenile crime have become very much more serious. I am convinced that there are very strong arguments against the raising of the age in juvenile courts beyond 16. The principal object of a juvenile court is the welfare of the children and young people who are brought before it, and for that reason those courts are equipped to deal more with the education and the welfare of those children than with their punishment.

This Bill carries still further the educative and reformative character of the juvenile court as constituted by the Children Act, 1908. Not only delinquent children, but neglected children, or children who have suffered from ill-treatment on the part of their proper guardians, are to be brought to the courts, and the help of local authorities is to be asked for in this work. Even greater care is to be taken that the courts should in no way be spoiled by the atmosphere of the ordinary police court. Even the words "conviction" and "sentence" are to be replaced by words of a less condemnatory character. All those are excellent and welcome additions to the Bill, for which we are thankful, but into this peaceful, homely and unconventional atmosphere we now propose to bring young persons in the age group from 16 to 17. I sincerely believe that if that is done, if this Amendment is defeated—and I hope the hon. Member will press it to a Division, because I am supporting it from a feeling of deep conviction—we shall not only ruin the atmosphere of the juvenile courts but nullify enormously the very good influence they have had up to date on young people.

There is another point of view—that if we bring these young adolescents to the juvenile courts we shall make them think very much less seriously of the crimes which they commit. When discussing this point in Standing Committee the Under-Secretary said: With regard to association we have to remember that just as much damago may come to a person who is wrongly sent to an adult court and who has to associate there with the adults who are waiting for trial, as may come to a person who is sent to a juvenile court and whose association is supposed to be harmful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 20th April, 1932; col. 393.] I am content to base the larger part of my argument against the raising of the age for juvenile courts on those words of the Under-Secretary. We have to realise that when we are dealing with the age limit, it is bound to be detrimental to some few human beings. There are bound to be some people who will go to a court that is less suited to their case, but when you send a juvenile who ought to be. in a juvenile court to an adult court, you only risk harming that one young person, whereas if you take to the juvenile court boys and girls who, because of their character and their influence, are going to be detrimental to the juvenile court, they come into contact with, and have a very great influence over a large number of other children. In the first case, the influence is harmful only to one young person, but in the other case it affects a large number, and the influence is multiple. The criminal statistics show an extremely alarming increase in crime among young persons from 16 to 21 years of age. These young people seem to think that they can safely indulge in what they sometimes call adventure because, if they are caught, they will only be placed on probation. I have been told by many magistrates, and by magistrates outside the London area, that these young people definitely expect to be put on probation over and over again—certainly when they are under 18 years of age.

Leniency and sentimentality can be carried too far, and, in my opinion, there is to-day not only a lack of discipline but a lack of reverence for the rights and property of other people. Bringing this higher age group into the juvenile courts will not act as a deterrent to the motor bandit and house-breaking type of adolescent who has figured so largely in recent convictions. He will merely be encouraged to minimise his offence. I have made an analysis of the figures of the county of Middlesex for the session which has just ended. Out of 45 persons convicted, 18 were between the ages of 16 and 21, of whom five were charged with breaking their recognisances after being placed upon probation. Eleven were under the age of 18, and their offences were either housebreaking, shop-breaking, motor stealing or store breaking.

Mr. STANLEY

Would the hon. Lady give us the vital figure, namely, the number under 17 who will be affected by the Amendment.

Mrs. TATE

Of the 11, six were under 17, and the offences were the ones I have quoted. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked just now what were these young people convicted of—stealing sweets, he suggested. I have two cases here, both of them boys of 16, one of whom had frequently been bound over and was put down as an old offender, and who was convicted of stealing a motor-car.

Mr. MAXTON

Very useful, too!

Mrs. TATE

Very useful, especially for his unlawful purpose. The other one, also aged 16, when arrested was in possession of an air-pistol and said he wanted adventure. He was convicted of breaking into a house and stealing 30s. In the following week he broke into the same house and stole eight £1 notes—also very useful. I strongly urge on the House that these young people are not fit subjects for the juvenile courts. We are here to study the interests and welfare of young delinquents, but we are not here to forget the interests and the rights of the law-abiding citizen, who has a right to look to the law to protect him and his property.

The age of 16 has been and still is a definite line of demarcation in English law. It is the legal age of marriage. It is also the age of consent, and a case has been recently brought to my notice of a girl of 16 who was placed in a situation in London by her parents. She did not like the situation, and she went with a girl friend, and took up the profession of walking on the streets. Her parents were very much distressed, and they brought extreme pressure on her to return home. The girl herself went to the police, and consulted them as to what legal right her parents had over her, and she found that they had none. She therefore entirely refused to go home, and she has kept to her profession, which is that of prostitution. I ask the House if that girl is brought up on any offence is it suggested that she is a suitable subject for a juvenile court to mix with other little children?

Mr. STANLEY

The Amendment which the hon. Lady is now supporting would allow her to be brought up before the juvenile court on the ground that her parents have failed to exercise control.

Mrs. TATE

If that is so, I am glad to hear it, but I understand that by law parents have no control over children after they have reached the age of 16 years, and, if they like, they can even turn them out into the world at that age. These young people have a definite feeling that at the age of 16 they have reached another stage in life, and, if they are in insurable occupations, they pay insurance contributions and that gives them a definite feeling of independence. I suggest that the juvenile courts, and the atmosphere of those courts which arc suitable for children who are still under some control while at home and at school, are not suitable to young people who have tasted freedom and misused that freedom. I urge upon the House—surely we have confidence in our magistrates— to believe that if any children of 16 are brought up for minor offences they will know how to deal with them in a sufficiently wise and lenient way, and will preserve the present character of our juvenile courts and keep them what we wish them to be. For these reasons, I ask the House to accept thus Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment, and the hon. and gallant Member who seconded it, have deservedly a reputation for their knowledge of these problems, and I may say that, in the course of their speeches, they have made me conscious of my own inferiority. I do not in these matters speak only from a limited experience of three months at the Home Office. I speak naturally with all the advantages we have had for acquiring the opinions of others who know a great deal more about the subject than I do, and certainly any Amendment which receives support from quarters behind me is one which deserves very serious consideration of the House, because we may be sure it is one which is moved with no desire to hamper the objects which we all have in view. We always have great difficulty when we come to deciding the question of age, when you are suddenly going to make a difference in the way you treat a person who happens to be two days older than somebody else.

11.0 p.m.

When you draw such a sudden line as that, there must, of course, always be illogicality, there must always be some who will fall on the wrong side of the line, and, whichever age you took, whether it were 16 or 17, as the age at which young persons should cease to go to the juvenile court, there would always be some who would go into the wrong court. Either you would be sending to a juvenile court some young person between 16 and 17 whose whole character and history are such as to make him unsuitable for it, or you would be sending some young person over 16 to an adult court for a trivial offence when his character was such as to make him eminently suitable to be dealt with in a juvenile court.

We have to realise that we cannot base our decision in this matter on an instance here or an instance there which may be given in the course of the Debate. Such instances can be given whichever age we choose. We have to try as far as possible, from the experience we can gather, the advice we can take, and the knowledge we can acquire, to find out at which end the balance of advantage is in favour of sending young persons to the juvenile court, and I am sure that neither the hon. and learned Member for Norwood nor my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley would wish the House for a moment to have the impression, which I rather got from their speeches, that every young person between the ages of 16 and 17 was inevitably a hooligan and unsuitable for treatment in a juvenile courts [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have to recognise that there is a great number who fall, not into the class of the grown-up hooligan, but who are still in the immature stage, and we have to decide what proportions are in the age group and on which side these people fall.

It seems to me that the arguments against bringing these young persons into the juvenile court fall into two classes. Some argue that the juvenile court is unfit to deal with these young persons, while others argue that these young persons are unfit to be dealt with in the juvenile court. As regards the first of these arguments, it seems to me that there is, perhaps, in the minds of some hon. Members, a little misunderstanding as to what the powers of the juvenile court are. The juvenile court is a court of summary jurisdiction, and, as such, it has, and will have, the same power to deal with these young persons between 16 and 17 which the ordinary adult court of summary jurisdiction would have. As the Bill stands—and this point is not touched by the Amendment—no young person under 17 is sent to prison, and, therefore, the powers possessed by the juvenile court and by the adult court in respect of these young persons are identical; exactly the same penalties can be inflicted by both.

Moreover, it is not generally recognised that the juvenile court is not a final court. It is, for young persons at any rate, still a court of summary jurisdiction, and: it is still possible to commit them from that court either to quarter sessions or to the assizes, and by doing so in suitable cases it is possible to have imposed, upon these young hooligans between 16 and 17, even if the Bill passes as it stands, that sentence of Borstal treatment which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley thinks is the appropriate method of dealing with them. I would point out that the remedy of probation, which has come in for a good deal of criticism from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood, is not a remedy that is confined to the juvenile court. It is not only in cases where young persons go to juvenile courts that there is a risk of the probation system being badly used, of too many chances being given, or of stern measures that should have been taken earlier being taken too late. Just as many cases of misunderstanding of the proper use of probation occur in adult courts as occur in juvenile courts. Hon. Members, therefore, will start by realising that, as far as the powers for dealing with these young persons are concerned, it makes no difference at all whether they go to the adult court or to the juvenile court. By sending them to a juvenile court you are not in any way reducing the extent of the remedies which the court can. apply to their various cases.

It is said that the atmosphere is wrong, that the way in which a magistrate would deal with a child of 12 before him for stealing oranges from a barrow is not the way in which to treat a young person of 16 charged with stealing a motor car. No one suggests that it is. It is not laid down that the magistrate must speak in exactly the same tone to the young person of 16 as to the child of 12. We have to assume that the magistrates to whom we entrust our summary procedure have at least as much sense as we have and that they will realise as we do that the same treatment is not applicable to both and, if we are not prepared to assume that, if we think the voluntary magistrates are so foolish that they are unable to distinguish between these two classes of case, I would remind the hon. Member that these voluntary magistrates who sit in the juvenile courts are exactly the same kind of people who sit in the courts of summary jurisdiction and you are not, therefore, going to gain anything by sending these young persons to them in the other court.

The other and the more serious question is what is the effect of sending even a certain number of unsuitable persons to a juvenile court where, it is true, they can be properly dealt with—they can if necessary be sent on to quarter sessions or assizes—but where they will come in contact with children whom they may contaminate and, in doing so, may spoil the atmosphere of the juvenile court. This purity of the juvenile court, which can only be insured by keeping the age at 16, has long ago been lost, because something like 2,000 cases a year are dealt with for one reason or another in juvenile courts of people over 16. In Liverpool the practice has grown up of dealing with a large number of cases over 16 in what amounts to a juvenile court, and the greatest care is taken, as it can be taken in a juvenile court, to segregate the old from the young, and I do not believe the Liverpool record of juvenile crime is any worse than that of the sister city over whose courts my hon. and learned Friend so well presides. The hon. Lady drew attention to my remark as to whether it is worse to contaminate the young person by the presence of the older one or the older one by sending him to a court where there are still older offenders, but she omitted what is a most important thing to remember, that, whereas in the juvenile court the Lord Chancellor, by rules that he can make under the Act, is able to ensure segregation in age groups which he thinks desirable and can, therefore, make certain that no contact is established, there is no such provision that applies to the adult court, and there any attempt at segregation must depend entirely on the wishes of the magistrates themselves. I think it is perfectly possible, as has been done in Liverpool, that if you think this age group should not come into contact with the younger offenders before the court, to ensure their segregation.

The proposal of the Bill is not one which the Home Office lays before the House without a great deal of consideration and consultation. It is, of course, part of the recommendation of that Young Offenders Committee to which I have to-day referred. She thought that the value of that recommendation was reduced by the fact that since the issue of the report crime statistics have gone up. But it seems to me that the fundamental thing which has not changed in any way is the condition of people at these ages. I do not suppose that persons of 16 are very different from what they were five years ago in 1927. If a body of men who were not at all sentimental, who were drawn from every type and included a London Metropolitan magistrate, thought that the child between 16 and 17 was fit to go to a juvenile court, I do not suppose that any such great biological or mental change has come over that age group in the last five years that that consideration has really changed. But since these proposals have been made public we have had other agreements with our proposals. The Magistrates' Association, the President of whom is a Metropolitan magistrate and which covers a vast number of magistrates and benches throughout the country, have expressed their approval of the raising of the age. The Association of Clerks to Justices has pronounced agreement with the scheme. So has the National Association of Probation Officers. I do not want the House to think that the proposal of the Bill was taken entirely on the initiative of someone with as little experience as myself. I agree that this case is an extremely difficult one, as it must be when you have to weigh the balance of advantage on the one side and on the other I believe first of all, that the larger proportion of young people between 16 and 17 are suitable for the juvenile court. Secondly, I believe that the larger proportion of offences for which such persons are sent to the court at all are of a comparatively trivial nature and are better dealt with in a juvenile court. Thirdly, I believe that it will be much easier and much less harmful to deal with the wrong cases, if such cases go wrongly to the juvenile court, than it would be to deal with the wrong cases that go to the adult court. I must therefore ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

The Under-Secretary interrupted the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Tate) with regard to the case of a girl between 16 and 17 leading an immoral life, and said she would be brought before the juvenile court by a charge of neglect being made against her parents. That charge would be made under Section 12 of the Children Act, 1908. Clause 68 of the Bill expressly provides that: for references to young persons there shall be substituted references to persons who have not attained the age of 16 years but are not children.

Mr. STANLEY

I think the hon. and learned Member is wrong. She would be brought before the court under Clause 9 of the Bill as it is now. That Clause would be unaffected by the Amendment and the girl would go to the juvenile court.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

I accept that at once, but it leaves untouched Section 12 of the Act.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON

I very much regret the attitude which the Undersecretary has taken up on this topic, and I rise for two reasons. The first reason is to express my regret that this matter should be debated at this time of the night, because we regard this provision as one which is fraught with very considerable danger to the well-being of the juvenile courts. The second reason why I rise is because the Under-Secretary, as it seems to me, adopts a somewhat hopeless attitude with regard to the problem which has to be faced. The problem is: Are there more young people between l6 and 17 who stand in danger if they are tried before the juvenile courts, or are there more young people who stand in danger if they are tried before the adult courts? On the Second Reading of the Bill I made a suggestion which I venture to repeat. The mischief of this argument is that it attempts to put young offenders into two rigid compartments. It attempts to draw a mere age line, and to do nothing more. All on one side of the line are regarded as young people who can be saved, and apparently all people beyond are regarded as young people who ought to be tried before adult courts, because there is no danger to them in the adult courts. I take neither of those views. It seems to me, with great respect to the very careful arguments to which we have listened, that what we want to do is to ensure that the children's courts as at present constituted are preserved and retained in the full use which they are giving us to-day. If it is thought that there are people above the age of 16 who ought not to go to adult courts, it is easy by a perfectly simple provision in the Bill, to give power either to the Lord Chancellor to make rules, or to local benches of justices so to order their business that people between the age of 16— and I should not shrink from making the other age 21—should be taken in a separate list, and, if necessary, in large areas of population, on a separate day, and there would be no necessity at all for them to come into contact with the adults over 21 years of age. It is a perfectly simple procedure.

I venture to offer that suggestion to the Government. It is one which would take half a dozen lines at the most—an enabling Sub-section—in the Bill, and it would meet the one difficulty which is apparently the one argument of the Under-Secretary for persisting in the line which has been taken in the Bill. After the age of 16, those who have experience of the courts find that there is a much greater tendency beyond that age to sexual offences which are so difficult to try, and which very often cause considerable anxiety to those who have to try them, where there are all sorts of things which have to be considered, and where the evidence is very often of a contradictory and most conflicting character. A considerable number of those are young women—the young prostitute—and the young boys up to 17 who are no better than they ought to be. To endanger the work of the children's courts by permitting persons and their associates charged with such offences to be hanging about at the children's courts among the parents and young children, and the guardians of young children who are there awaiting trial, is to produce just that very danger of association which the children's courts were originally created in order to avoid. I must impress again on the House, as I endeavoured to do on Second Reading— then, most unfortunately, on a Friday morning—the real danger which the trial of such offences before the children's courts is likely to produce. I have received during the months which have ensued since the Second Reading a large number of communications from various persons and as far as my recollection goes I have not received a single communication suggesting that the arguments which were put forward on that occasion by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mrs. Tate), who has had practical experience of children's courts, and by myself were arguments which had a wrong basis in opinion or in fact. Once again, even at this late hour, and even, after the speech of the Under-Secretary, I beg the Government to reconsider this matter.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

I should like to add my voice to the expressions of regret at the decision which the Under-Secretary has reached. We base our argument upon the different development between the ages of 15½ to 16½. Anyone who has had to do with boys up to the age of 16 and 17 realises very much the difference in development between the ages of 16 and 17. I regret to tell the Under-Secretary that in coming to the decision at which he has arrived he will very largely alter the atmosphere of the juvenile courts and nullify the object of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

I make this Motion in order to ask a question. Speaking for myself and on behalf of my friends on this side, we are willing to sit here for any legitimate dis- cussion that is going to result in people registering their votes on the opinions they have expressed, but we are entitled to make a protest against a large amount of time being spent on a discussion which, in the end, has had no effect except to allow those who have opinions to express them. We are willing to sit here and support our point of view in the Lobby, but I do not think that we ought to be asked to sit here so that the House may become a mere debating society.

Mr. STANLEY

The right hon. Gentleman opposite and hon. Members in all parts of the House have given me such great co-operation here and in Committee, and there has not been the least desire to obstruct, that I hesitate to impose upon their good nature. But the position is this, that unless we pass the Bill tonight there will be no opportunity for it to go to another place and become law this Session. We have to choose between a late night sitting or losing the Bill. I do not like asking hon. Members who have co-operated with me to do this, but that is the position. I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to see whether it is not possible to expedite the pace at which we are going. It is quite true that the matters discussed have been of great importance, but I think that the essential points could have been put in rather less time than seven and a-half hours. I hope hon. Members will help in expediting the work as it would be most inconvenient if the time spent over the Bill to-night was lost.

Mr. LANSBURY

We are perfectly willing to stay and co-operate with the hon. Member if the discussions are going to be useful, and we hope they will be less lengthy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Juvenile Courts.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "years", to insert the words: or where a child or young person is charged with an offence, and a person who has attained the age of seventeen years is charged at the same time with aiding, abetting, causing, procuring, allowing, or permitting that offence. In Subsection (2, i), we have adopted a principle that, where a young person who would normally be charged in a juvenile court is charged jointly with an older offender, rather than separate the two, who obviously should be tried together, and rather than bring the adult into the juvenile court, we have made it obligatory that the juvenile should go to the adult court. The fundamental basis on which that rests is that there are certain classes of cases where it is essential for the true course of justice that the two persons charged should be charged together and we have expressed that in the Bill. It appears, however, on investigation that there is another type of case which it is equally desirous, from the point of view of justice, that the two persons should be charged together alhough it may not strictly be called a joint charge. It is the case where a young person is charged with committing an offence and an older person is charged with procuring its commission. The evidence is the same, and it is in the interests of justice that they should be tried together. The Amendment is really nothing more than a machinery amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after the word "disobeyed ", to insert the words: or under section fifty-four of that Act which relates to the making of orders inquiring defective or epileptic children to be sent to suitable classes or schools). We have made it possible for the Lord Chancellor to send to the juvenile courts applications under Sections 44 and 45 of the Education Act and it is clear that Section 54 should also appear and the applications should be heard in the juvenile court. Section 54 enables a local education authority to require a parent to send a child to a certified class if the child is defective or epileptic and if the order is not obeyed the local education authority can apply to the court of summary jurisdiction for an order. It stands on the same footing as applications under Sections 44 and 45.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of juvenile courts outside Metropolitan areas).

Sir GERALD HURST

I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after the word "cases", to insert the words: of whom one at least shall be a woman, if there is any woman on the commission for the place so qualified. 11.30 p.m.

This Amendment raises an issue of great importance. The issue which it raises has nothing to do with equal rights for men and women or the cause of feminism, or any general principle of that sort. It seeks to secure, for the benefit of those young persons and children who are brought before the juvenile court, that there shall be on the panel from which the tribunal is selected at least one woman qualified to deal with juvenile cases by special experience or aptitude. The aim of the Amendment is to give juvenile courts outside London the same advantage as that which is to be enjoyed by juvenile courts in London. In the Metropolitan area, there must be, under a later Clause of the Bill, a woman upon the tribunal, but, as the Bill is now framed, that advantage is denied to courts outside London. The Amendment is very moderate. It simply proposes that there shall be one woman on the panel, though in fact there should be many more. The positive advantage of the Amendment is that it will secure to the juvenile who is brought before one of these courts, the benefit of having a woman on the tribunal with special qualifications to deal with such cases and we believe that there are many women in all areas amply qualified to deal with cases of this type. As the Bill is now drafted, a discretion is delegated to the Lord Chancellor to make rules which might have this effect but, considering that the House has not delegated that discretion in the case of London, and that it is against the general principle of Parliament to delegate the discretion of the House on important issues such as this, in my submission there is no need whatever to adopt the idea of delegation at all in this case. There is no reason why Parliament, if it has certain convictions, should not act on those convictions and secure to people in the provinces, the advantage which is to be enjoyed by London in this respect. The Amendment has the support of a very large number of social workers all over the country; the advantage of having women magistrates in these cases is well known; and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to see his way to make some concession in this matter.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

Quite apart from the question of principle, this is an Amendment which is framed in such terms that it would be impossible for me to accept it. Hon. Members will realise that the duty of the Lord Chancellor is to form a panel of justices specially qualified for the work of these courts in every petty sessional division. The Amendment says that on every panel in a petty sessional division there shall be a woman, if there is a woman who is fully qualified, not in a particular petty sessional division, but on the Commission of the Peace. The Commission of the Peace is the Commission of the Peace for the whole county, and the result would be that if, in a large county such as mine, you had one woman who had special qualifications to be on this bench, she would not be on the panel of every single petty sessional division in the area of that Commission of the Peace. Hon. Members will see that there is a further and consequential Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member, which provides that wherever Where is a woman on the panel, one of the justices sitting in the juvenile court has to be a woman. That means to say that not only would that one unfortunate woman on the Commission of the Peace have to be on the panel of every petty sessional district, but she would have to sit at every petty sessional court for it to be entitled to sit as a juvenile court at all. So long as she was away or was ill, therefore, no juvenile court could be held in the area of that Commission of the Peace at all. In wide districts such as mine, or, say, the West Riding of Yorkshire, the machinery of this Amendment is quite impossible.

I do not deny the advantage of having a woman on these juvenile courts, especially as the hon. and learned Member drops the scheme, which I resented so much in Committee, that whereas men were only to be appointed on the panels of juvenile courts if they were specially qualified, women could be appointed without any investigation of their qualifications at all. It is remarkable how often those who claim equal treatment of the sexes are prepared to accept inequality as long as it reacts to their advantage. But the difficulty is one of the shortage of women magistrates. It may be a great pity, but it is a fact, and the trouble is that if you try to deal with the situation which exists to-day by means of anything in this Bill, you can only do it in such a restricted way that it may well be completely out of date in a few years' time, when we hope that the proportion of women magistrates will be largely increased.

It is because of that, because I think that where the situation is changing rapidly, as this situation must change, you want to retain flexibility, that I suggest that, whatever we do in the way of provision for women magistrates should be done in the Rules, which are capable of amendment, which are flexible, and which do not require legislation before they can be changed at all. I entirely sympathise with the general desire of the mover of the Amendment that wherever possible we should have women sitting on these juvenile courts. We fully recognise the value of their attendance, and I can assure the House that in the Rules that we draw up for the formation of these panels we shall see that, as far as possible, the services of women justices are made available in the juvenile courts.

Miss RATHBONE

I think the arguments put forward by the Undersecretary of State in some ways strengthen the case for the Amendment. One of the difficulties here is that in many counties the very powers that are open to appoint a reasonable number of women magistrates have not been used. Take the instance given by the hon. Gentleman. If there were such a thing as a large county with only one woman magistrate, it would certainly be very difficult to carry this Amendment into effect, but the remedy would be extremely simple; it would be to appoint more women magistrates. The Under-Secretary of State allowed himself to gibe at women for asking for equality but being ready to drop it when they wished to have an unfair privilege. Women have only found it necessary to ask for regulations of this sort because it is the almost universal experience that local authorities in many places have not made sufficient use of the services of women. The more that is so, the more there is need for rules of this kind. In a county where women magistrates are numerous and where their services are amply used, probably a provision of this kind would be unnecessary because it is certain that women would be asked to sit in juvenile courts; but in a county-and we know that unfortunately there are several- where there is a ridiculously inadequate number of women magistrates, and where there is a prejudice against them, it is important that the services of women should be available to the juvenile courts.

It is sometimes argued that you want the best person irrespective of sex. Of course, it is desirable to get the best person, but in a court dealing with a number of girl offenders the sex of the magistrates is important. I would ask hon. Members what they would feel if the case were reversed. Would they feel it satisfactory if boy offenders were dealt with by a bench on which there were only women magistrates? What an outcry that would cause. In the case of a young girl where the offence touches a question of morals, is it suitable or desirable or fair to the girl that she should be dealt with by a bench on which there is not a single woman? I appeal to the Undersecretary to reconsider this matter. If there is any technical flaw in the Amendment which would make it difficult to carry out, it would be perfectly easy for

Division No. 178.]	AYES.	[11.45 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grundy, Thomas W.	McGovern, John
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Maxton, James
Atholl, Duchess of	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Parkinson, John Allan
Briant, Frank	Harris, Sir Percy	Price, Gabriel
Buchanan, George	Hirst, Gaorge Henry	Pathbone, Eleanor
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Holdsworth, Herbert	Tate, Mavis Constance
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Horsbrugh, Florence	Tinker, John Joseph
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Janner, Barnatt	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)
Dagger, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lambury, Rt. Hon. George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Leckie, J. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Lann, William	Sir Gerald Hurst and Mr. Caporn.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McEntes, Valentine L.

NOES
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Albery, Irving James	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Baidwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Clarke, Frank	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Fermoy, Lord
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Colman, N. C. D.	Pox, Sir Gifford
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Cooke, Douglas	Fraser, Captain Ian
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Craven-Ellis, William	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaintb'ro)	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Blindell, Jamas	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bottom, A. C.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Goff, Sir Park
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Goldie, Noel B.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Donner, P. W.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Buchan, John	Drewe, Cedric	Gower, Sir Robert
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Duggan, Hubert John	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Burnett, John George	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Dunglass, Lord	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

the Under-Secretary to show where to remedy it. The principle is one to which organised women all over the country attach very great importance, not as a bit of mere feminism, but because they know that it is of practical importance in cases of young children of either sex, especially in cases of girl offenders, that there should be women magistrates. In spite of the fact that women magistrates have been in existence and have done admirable work for ten years, there are still places where insufficient use is made of their services.

Viscountess ASTOR

I should like to point out to the Under-Secretary that this Amendment is brought in entirely by men, and I hope that they will have the courage to press it. It is one way in which we can increase the number of women magistrates in juvenile courts. Unless it is done this way, we shall go on for years having girls brought before benches of magistrates on which there is not a single woman.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 181.

Hanley, Dennis A.	Margesson, Capt. Henry David, R.	Salt, Edward W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Scone, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Selley, Harry R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Milne, Charles	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hornby, Frank	Moreing, Adrian C.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Horobin, Ian M.	Morgan, Robert H.	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Morrison, William Shephard	Slater, John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)	Nation, Brigadier-General I. J. H.	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Jamieson, Douglas	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Soper, Richard
Jennings, Roland	North, Captain Edward T.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Nunn, William	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ker, J. Campbell	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ormiston, Thomas	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Kimball, Lawrence	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.	Stevenson, James
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Palmer, Francis Noel	Stones, James
Knebworth, Viscount	Patrick, Colin M.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Pearson, William G.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Percy, Lord Eustace	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Petherick, M.	Summersby, Charles H.
Levy, Thomas	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Llewellin, Major John J.	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Pybus, Percy John	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Rankin, Robert	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ray, Sir William	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Remer, John R.	Weymouth, Viscount
Mabane, William	Rentoul, Sir Gervals, S.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Renwick, Major Gustav A.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
McKie, John Hamilton	Rosbotham, S. T.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Captain Sir George Bowyer and Mr.
Maitland, Adam	Runge, Norah Cecil	Womersley.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

CLAUSE 4.—{Constitution of juvenile courts in the City of London.)

Mr. CADOGAN

I beg to move in page 5, line 30, to leave out the words "shall sit at such, place or places, and."

If hon. Members will look at Clause 4, they will see that it runs as follows: Juvenile courts for the City of London shall sit at such place or places, and shall be constituted in such manner, as the court of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City may from time to time determine. If hon. Members turn to the governing Clause, namely, Clause 1, they will Bee that it lays down that A juvenile court shall not without the approval of the Secretary of State sit— (a) in a building mainly or exclusively used as a police station, or for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts "; I moved a similar Amendment in Committee in order that there should not be ambiguity about it, and I then asked the Under-Secretary whether, if I withdrew it, he could settle on some form of words which would make it clear that the procedure should be regular, and I understand that the words I now propose are those which commend themselves to him.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

As the hon. Member has said, I gave a promise when we had a similar Amendment in Committee that, if it was withdrawn, I would provide a suitable form of words which would make it clear that the venue of juvenile courts in the peculiar circumstances of the City of London should be left to their discretion. The House must not think that the City is not co-operating fully in the objects of the Bill, for they are making arrangements to hold their juvenile courts in rooms separate from the police stations, but in the peculiar circumstances of the City it is not possible for them to comply with the ordinary provisions, and I hope that the House will therefore accept the Amendment-Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CADOGAN

I beg to move, in line 32, after the word "manner," to insert the words: and shall (notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act) sit at such place or places. This Amendment is consequential.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Powers of juvenile court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, at the end, to insert the words: and where a recognisance under the said sub-section (1) is adjudged to be forfeited the court may, if they think fit, instead of adjudging the person bound thereby to pay the sum for which he is bound, adjudge him to pay part only of the said sum or remit payment thereof. This Amendment does not raise a point of very great substance. This Clause would make it possible for a juvenile court to order a parent or guardian of a child brought before it to enter into recognisances to exercise proper care and guardianship. The recognisances are governed by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and, in the event of some breach of the conditions, a recognisance of that nature must be forfeited as a whole. This Amendment gives a court power, if they decide that a recognisance has been forfeited, to forfeit part of the money. We think that this milder form is more appropriate than the more rigorous form under the Summary Jurisdiction Act.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 15.—(Amendments as to summary trial of children for indictable offences.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, after the word "person," to insert the words "who is."

I might conveniently deal at the same time with the following Amendment. These two Amendments, taken together, are nothing more than a drafting Amendment. It was pointed out that, as Clause 15 now stands, it might possibly lead, where a child was charged with another child, to the child being sent for trial. That is only where he is charged with an adult, and these Amendments make it clear that a joint charge against two children does not bring a child within this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 24, after the word "him," insert the words "and who is not a child."— [Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Power of any court to remit juvenile offender to a juvenile court.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, to leave out the 12 m. word "convicted," and to insert instead thereof the words "found guilty."

Hon. Members who were on the Committee will recollect that, during the discussion on a new Clause to prevent convictions being recorded, I said that throughout the Bill we had substituted the words "found guilty" for the word "convicted." Subsequent investigation showed that in one instance I was wrong, and that the word "convicted" had been used. It is our object to get away from the use of the word "convicted" in connection with these juveniles, and my Amendment brings this particular Clause into line with the rest of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Increase of age with respect to criminal responsibility and death sentences.)

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, to leave out the word "eight," and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."

I argued this matter in the Committee, and I want to make a protest now against the atmosphere which the Government Rave been responsible for creating in the House to-night. The Government have been getting their own way in everything, and whenever the least thing has happened they have put forward the argument that we have no rights. They are not going to get the Bill as easily as they may think. This Amendment raises a very serious matter. It is that little boys and girls of the working class, who have never had a chance in life, are going to be made criminals at eight years of age, and I and the party for whom I speak to-night consider that that is a disgrace in this enlightened age. We say that is far too early. They have not come to years of discretion, and we suggest that 14 would be early enough to brand a little boy or girl as a criminal. The Noble Lady described this as a free House. She means, I understand, that we never had so many wealthy young men in the House as we have now and that they are free—they cannot be got at. Here is a chance for these young Tory bloods to show whether they are free men and whether they have derived any benefit from their education or if they are still going to stand by the old diehard Tory idea that the children of the working-class, when they do something that they consider not right, should be dubbed criminals at eight years of age. I put it to every father in the House, how would he like his boy or girl to be dubbed a criminal at eight years of age for doing a very trifling thing which hardly a man in the House has not done himself. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and they are doing it here to-night.

Mr. McGOVERN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I consider that this is a very modest request indeed. I listened with interest to the discussion in the earlier part of the evening, and I found that, for economic reasons, we had resistance put up against other Amendments because of the possibility of industry not being able to stand the changes that were asked for, but surely no argument of that kind can be brought against this Amendment. I think we might in a human way, jointly, independent of our political views, agree to this modest request to extend to 14 the age of the responsibility of a child for the petty things that take place in years of youthful indiscretion. It is a tragic thing to see children being taken before courts charged with offences. In Glasgow we have boys and girls being hauled before the court charged with such horrible and vicious crimes as playing football in the streets or standing at street corners, or breaking a pane of glass with a football. I have a personal interest in these matters, for at the age of 10 I was brought before the police court in Glasgow and was charged with the heinous offence of lighting squibs. I do not know whether it was the relief of Mafeking, but in the days of my patriotic indiscretion I was throwing squibs on the top of a bus. They caused a violent explosion and nearly blew the people off the bus. I was arrested by the police and first of all taken to the house. Then the policeman left. We thought that that was the end of the matter. I am sure that the policeman must have heard my screams because of what I got from my mother. Then after a period the sum- mons came, and I had to appear before the Justices, and I got another hammering. Then we went to the Court and the case was examined. None the less when I got home I received a further hammering. All this did not have the desired result, because within six months, when I was coming home one afternoon after a swim in a little burn, I was thirsty, and at the gate of a little villa I saw milk cans and drank sixpennyworth of cream. For that offence I was again in the hands of the police. No one would suggest that these were vicious crimes. They may have been the actions of a person who was full of life and vigour. No one would suggest that for actions of that kind children ought to be hauled before the Court. I have more faith in the ability of parents to punish, if punishment has to be administered. We have to remember the conditional of life in working-class areas. If a child is hauled before the court he is regarded by his associates as a sort of hero.

I want the Government to accept this exceedingly modest request to raise the age to 14. It has been said that the children hauled before the court are working-class children. That is because such children are herded together in tenements and slum areas where they have no opportunity of developing that which the Creator intended them to develop. They are herded together, and they develop a sort of mass psychology, through lack of opportunities, for playing football in the street and committing small offences, and because of that we are to haul them before the Court. I ask the Government at this late hour to accept this modest Amendment, no matter what else is in the Bill.

Mr. STANLEY

There is the argument as to whether children of a certain age should be dealt with by a criminal or a quasi-criminal procedure. Whatever argument I have heard, it has always been an argument as to which of these two methods would be the better. I have never before heard the suggestion that there should be no method of any kind. The result of the acceptance of the Amendment would be that in respect of the child up to 14, whatever he might happen to do, whether he might rank among the minor criminals like the hon. Member of Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), or whether he might attain to higher places on the road to criminal fame, there would be nothing but the chance of parental discipline to discourage him from a repetition of those offences. The Amendment which the hon. Member has moved is for from being a humane one. In his case, I have no doubt that the three hammerings which he received at home were far more severe than any punishment in a juvenile court, where they would not even be allowed to hammer him once. Incidentally, what he told us seemed to be the best argument for doing away with the whipping of children I have yet heard.

The fact remains that society cannot be expected to leave entirely uncontrolled to the sweet will of the parent the discipline to be administered in cases which may be of a very much more serious kind than those to which the hon. Member referred. To start with, I am not at all sure that a suggestion of this kind is necessarily a humane one, as far as the future life of the children is concerned. I am not sure that a training which may well enable them to believe that up to the age of 14 they are entitled to do whatever they like, that they can steal whatever they can lay their hands on, that they can smash whatever they wish, and that unless their father or mother is prepared to punish them no one can say a word, is a good training for an after life where that indulgence will disappear and where they will have to answer to society under the ordinary penal code for doing things which in the impressionable period of their lives they had been led to believe could be done without any consequences following at all.

With regard to the juvenile court, we are neither sending the child to a great place of horror, the mere appearance in which would blast his future and leave a dreadful impression on his nature, nor are we sending him to a place where he may be received with savage punishment which destroys his future. The worst thing that can happen to a child if he goes to the juvenile court is to be sent to an approved school where the physical conditions are likely to be better than the physical conditions at home. More often the appearance of the child in a juvenile court does not mean transportation to Botany Bay, and does not mean imprisonment, but that he is put under the supervision of a probation officer.

It does exercise some check on him and brings home to him the fact that he has to restrain those anti-social tendencies, however joyful they may be to him personally. What would have been the result if the hon. Member for Shettleston had grown up with a desire for throwing squibs into 'buses. No doubt the correction in his early youth has led him into merely throwing verbal squibs across the floor of the House. If we were to accept the Amendment it would take away from the State any opportunity of dealing in any way, however reformative and however lenient, with the young offender under 14. That is bad for the child even more than it is bad for the State, and it is not fair to the child that as soon as he reaches the age of 14 he should have to unlearn all the lessons on these matters which he has learned.

Mr. BRIANT

I cannot be accused of want of sympathy for the young, but I think that the passing of the Amendment would be a disaster. Young offenders must be made to understand the nature of the offence they are committing. I have in mind the case of a boy of 13 who was deliberately training other boys to be thieves. In that case it is to the advantage of the boy, as well as the other boys, that he should be charged with the offence and placed at the mercy of a children's court rather than to the rod of the parent. This week I have had a case of 12 boys climbing into a factory and stealing sweets. I do not hesitate to say that for the sake of these boys they should be made to understand the nature of their offence and be brought before some court. One likes to take the humanitarian point of view wherever possible, but in certain cases it is disastrous to the children.

Mr. MAXTON

I am amazed and somewhat shocked at the attitude of the Undersecretary and the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant). In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) the Under-Secretary neglected to recognise that there is an educational system at work in the country. I cannot speak from the experience of a criminal child, like the hon. Member for Shettleston, but I can speak from expert knowledge of teaching for years in schools in the poorest districts of Glasgow. In the course of 15 years' experience I came across boys who committed offences and peccadillos of one kind or another, but I always felt that I was more capable of dealing with them than could a police officer or, with all due respect, the magistrates who sat on the bench in Glasgow.

I also considered that the school was a much more appropriate place for checking wrong tendencies and developing right tendencies than any police court. I am surprised that my hon. Friends do not fully recognise the school as an institution of the State and the teacher as one of the most important public officials. I am surprised that they do not recognise that in the teachers generally throughout the elementary schools we have a body of men and women whose day and night concern it is not to prevent crime, but to develop decent right-thinking men and women to whom crime will be unthinkable. I am surprised at the physiological conception running through the whole of the Bill. The answer of the Under-Secretary

Division No. 179.]	AYES.	[12.29 a.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lumley, Captain Lawrence, R.
Albery, Irving James	Fermoy, Lord	Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Fox, Sir Gifford	Mabane, William
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fraser, Captain Ian	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Fuller, Captain A. G.	McKie, John Hamilton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Maitland, Adam
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Goff, Sir Park	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Goldie, Noel B.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Blinded, James	Gower, Sir Robert	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Bossom, A. C.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Guinness, Thomas L. E.B.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Briant, Frank	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Moreing, Adrian C.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Morrison, William Shephard
Buchan, John	Hanley, Dennis A.	Nathan, Major H. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Harris, Sir Percy	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Burnett, John George	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	North, Captain Edward T.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Nunn, William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Hornby, Frank	Palmer, Francis Noel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Horobin, Ian M.	Patrick. Colin M.
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Pearson, William G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Petherick, M.
Colman, N. C. D.	Janner, Barnett	Powell, Lieut-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cooke, Douglas	Jennings, Roland	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Craven-Ellis, William	Ker, J. Campbell	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rankin, Robert
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Kimball, Lawrence	Rathbone, Eleanor
Dalkeith, Earl of	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ray, Sir William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Knebworth, Viscount	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Drewe, Cedric	Leckie, J. A.	Remer, John R.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Duggan, Hubert John	Levy, Thomas	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

is that of a deterrent penalty rather than an educative development. We deliberately chosed the age of 14 because it is the age at which the child of a working-class family usually leaves school and when the influence of the school ceases. I cannot accept the answer of the Undersecretary as satisfactory. The educational system of the country is quite capable of dealing with the problem of children who commit offences. In the majority of cases they are boyish pranks. I can stand in the position of an expert in this matter, a man with superior knowledge. I say that it is only a small minority of children under the age of 14 who commit offences which are more than mere boyish pranks, and in these few cases I am confident that the person to deal with them is the teacher, not the policeman. We propose to carry the Amendment to a division.

Question put, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 6.

Salt, Edward W.	Soper, Richard	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Scone, Lord	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Selley, Harry R.	Stones, James	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Weymouth, Viscount
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin	Summersby, Charles H.	Womersley, Walter James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)	Sutcliffe, Harold	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Skelton, Archibald Noel	Tate, Mavis Constance
Slater, John	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Lieut.- Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.

NOES.
Buchanan, George	Maxton, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-
Daggar, George	Tinker, John Joseph	Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Mc. Govern.
Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Mr. PRICE

I beg to move, in page 13, line 17, to leave out the word "eighteen", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one".

I do not intend to speak for long, but, nevertheless, I do suggest that this Amendment deals with one of the most important parts of this Bill, the question of capital punishment. While we may admit that in our criminal law we have made tremendous headway in the last r>0 years, it is also true to say that in the question of capital punishment we have lagged behind many other countries in dealing with the matter of reform. There is a strong public opinion, if not a majority, that considers the time has arrived when capital punishment ought to be abolished. This Amendment at least suggests that in this Bill capital punishment should not be applied in the case of young persons up to the age of 21. I find that for the past 25 years there have been 57 cases of persons under 21 who have been convicted and sentenced to capital punishment: 48 were males and 9 were females. Of these, 28 were respited, one was certified as insane, and 19 were executed. There has not been one case during the last five years. This Amendment ought to find some sympathy in all parts of the House. The time has come when we ought to show to the world at large that we are making some reform in the penal system, and especially in regard to capital punishment which attends the offence of murder. I think there could be a strong case made out that there is a line of demarcation, even in the case of murder, and I suggest that in the case of the young man or young woman under the age of 21 who commits this crime he or she must have something wrong mentally. By accepting this Amendment we should be at least showing that we have begun to realise that reform is necessary in regard to this form of punishment.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

The House will recognize, I think, that there is good reason for adopting it, since the feeling in this country is against capita] punishment altogether. I am not there yet, for I believe that in some cases it is necessary, but I want to show that we are progressing by seeing that at least under a certain age, namely twenty-one, which age we claim to be maturity and at which age we give people the vote- capital punishment should not be inflicted, and that we think that in some cases there may be some excuse. The age when life ought to be taken is certainly not before twenty-one. I hope this will not be taken as an attempt on these benches to get rid of capital punishment altogether. I am in favour of it in some eases, but I believe it should be restricted to persons over a certain age.

Sir. H. SAMUEL

This Amendment does not, of course, raise the principle of capital punishment. That would clearly be out of order on this Bill. If that subject were raised it would lead to an interesting debate in which strong views would be expressed on the one side and the other, but it is not the issue which the House is asked to determine this evening. It is only the question of the age at which capital punishment should be applicable. The law at present is that a person over the age of sixteen may be sentenced to death, and he must be if he is found guilty of murder, but for many years-for nearly half-a-century-no one has, in fact, been executed under the age of eighteen. It is the universal practice of all Home Secretaries to reprieve under that age, and the Bill proposes to amend the present law in Order to raise the age to eighteen. As matters now stand, all the solemn ceremony of condemnation to death of youths of sixteen and seventeen has to be gone through in some cases when all the world knows that, as a matter of course, they will be reprieved on account of their youth alone, apart from any other circumstances. The question raised is where the line must be drawn. It is purely a matter, not of principle, but of the age, and a line must be drawn somewhere.

The hon. Member's Amendment suggests that youths of eighteen, nineteen and twenty, no matter what may be the circumstances of the crime which they have committed, shall be exempt from the penalty. This matter was considered carefully by the Departmental Committee which went into this question and on whose report this Bill is founded, and they came, nemine contradicente to the recommendation that the age should be eighteen. That was consequently inserted in the Bill, and with the approval of various Home Secretaries at the Home Office who have considered, consecutively, the provisions that should be inserted in a Bill to be founded on that Report. The matter was discussed by the Standing Committee of this House, and an Amendment similar to that now moved was considered, but was rejected by a majority of 23 to 13, and the figure of eighteen was left standing in the Bill. It should be remembered that young men of twenty, or even of nineteen, may have characters that make them extremely dangerous to society. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that anyone of this age who committed a grave offence must have something mentally wrong with him. That is not necessarily so at all. Many very grave crimes have been committed in the last few years in different parts of the world—some of them political crimes —by students, and some very grave crimes of the motor bandit type have been committed by young men who are reckless and ruthless and who do not hesitate upon occasions to use firearms. We know that in our prisons there are young men of nineteen and twenty who have nothing at all mentally wrong with them, but who have got much that is wrong morally. If one of that class were to commit a crime of great atrocity, for example, a crime such as the terrible outrage committed on a little girl in London not long ago, or if there were to be some shocking assassination committed by a young man of twenty, I am not sure that public opinion would approve of the law not being applied to him—while it would apply to the person who committed a similar crime if he had passed his twenty-first birthday—merely on account of youth. Those are the reasons why the Government consider that this Amendment, in all the circumstances, should not be accepted.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I rise to support the Amendment. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has just given the same kind of reasons that were given by the Under-Secretary when the Bill was before the Committee upstairs. I am astonished that he should make the same reply, after all the reasons that have been adduced. I want to ask him to give one case—not a hypothetical case, for we have no right to make laws on hypothetical cases—of a motor bandit in prison now that comes under this Amendment. There is not one. The right hon. Gentleman is presupposing what will happen in the future. We have to deal with things as they are and not with what we suppose is going to happen. This is a very serious step which the House is taking. We do not give the young man the vote until he comes to the age of 21, because it is said that he has not the experience and has come to the age of reason. Why, then, in this supposedly sane age in which we are living, should we, with the support of an all-powerful Government which has a greater majority than any Government has ever had, take this view of capital punishment? This Government will carry into effect whatever it believed in, and it is perfectly true that the Secretary of State evidently believes in capital punishment. I do not believe in capital punishment, but the Secretary of State must believe in it. When the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) moved her Amendment to-night the right hon. Gentleman told us he was in favour of it, and yet he asked the House to turn it down. Where is. all their courage and all their outstanding ability? All the principles and high ideas of the men in charge of this Bill have evidently been thrown overboard. We are pleading to-night against the Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" which the Government are upholding.

I would not be in Order to-night in saying how foolish capital punishment is, and so I must do what I can within the Rules of Order of the House to mitigate it. This Amendment will give some individuals, those between the ages of 18 and 21, a chance of life. I was astonished at one statement made by the Home Secretary, when he said that they had never hanged anybody under the age or 18 and that persons convicted under that age had always been reprieved. He added that the Judge on the bench, owing to the facts laid before him, must pass the uttermost sentence of the law. He has to act according to the law, and in certain circumstances must pronounce the death penalty, leaving it to the Home Secretary to alter the sentence. Yet, although the judge and the prison officials know that a young man or young woman will not be hanged, they dare not tell the prisoner so. This is what our greatest authority says: After 25 years' experience it is not sufficiently realised what cruelty is involved in putting a woman, often a mere girl, through all the mental agony of living several days under a sentence of death, which is real to her, although reprieve is an almost foregone conclusion to the authorities. 'When have I got to die?' was, a prison official tells us, the cry of a young woman recently on being brought back to the condemned cell after receiving sentence of death and the kindliest officials dare not forestall the prerogative of mercy by holding out any assurance that the sentence would not be executed. An extreme instance of belated action is given in the following evidence of a witness: 'Death sentence was passed over three years ago. The reprieve did not come in until the woman had been weighed in to see what drop was needed and until within two days of the execution being carried out. I believe the gallows was prepared. The matron was absolutely ill with suspense and the feeling among the officers and the other prisoners, not to mention the poor thing herself, was intense. It was nothing short of torture.'". That is the opinion given by an authority who has to deal with prisoners of this kind. Here is an opportunity for the House to save the Home Secretary from the terrible anguish through which he is bound to pass through. I and my colleagues know what it is to go to a Home Secretary and to appeal to him for the reprieve of somebody who is going to be hanged. We know how the Home Secretary is not able to sleep because of that responsibility which is hanging over him. We are by this Amendment in a humane and intelligent manner giving the Home Secretary an opportunity to save himself from the deplorable position in which he is placed. There is an outstanding case on record, which I quoted in Committee, of a young man who was tried and sentenced to death for a crime which he never committed. He was reprieved, however, and later Charles Peace, before he was hanged, admitted that it was he who had committed the crime. If the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment, it would save him all that anxiety.

1.0 a.m.

Another point which I wish to put to the House arises from the experience of my colleagues and myself. It is working-class boys and girls who are going to be affected, and I know what working-class life is. The majority of this House has no knowledge of it. No distance lends enchantment to the view here. I want the House just to consider what it is doing here. We are all more impulsive and more ready to do something at the ages of 18 to 21 than when we are older. Experience teaches us to have more control of ourselves. This is a very serious question; there is no doubt about that, and the House should realise that we are discussing a question of death and life. We are standing here this morning appealing on behalf of the youth of this country to the Home Secretary that he might take back his part of the Bill. If he cannot accept this Amendment, he should give some concession. The concession which has been given is infinitesimal. I do not know if I can do any good going on any further. I have to leave it to the good sense of the House. The responsibility is theirs. We have done our best. Look at it in a moderate and intelligent way.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

The Amendment which stands in our names and which the hon. Member has supported was moved in the Committee upstairs. I want the House to believe me when I say that the Amendment was not advanced upstairs or here in the slightest degree in a frivolous frame of mind. Many of us attach the greatest importance to this Amendment. The Home Secretary said this was not a proper occasion to raise the general issue of capital punishment as such. With that I would agree up to a point. Obviously, however, you cannot discuss the Amendment in our name without in some degree touching the Tightness or wrongness of capital punishment so far as it applies between the age of 18, as in the Bill, and what we propose—the age of 21. I think it is fair and reasonable to point out to the House, and it is well known to all the Members of the House, that the attiude of the general public to-day towards this question of capital punishment has undergone, and is undergoing, a transformation. I think the number of people to-day who have a doubt as to the Tightness of capital punishment is far larger than ever before in our history. That element of doubt is entertained by people in all walks of life and all political parties. It is not a political question, but a humanitarian question, and people of good will and intent really have the most serious doubts regarding the rights of the retention of this extreme penalty being recognised by the law of the land.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) gave expression to what I consider a fundamental truth, which we must not forget in connection with this Amendment. After all when we are young we do tend to be more irresponsible in our actions than we are later in life. We all learn by experience. We gather knowledge in the school of experience. I think it is fair to say that supplies an argument against capital punishment, which must clearly be very much stronger when applied to a person below the age of 21. I cannot speak with final authority in this matter, but I believe I am not far wrong when I say that most of the offences which lead to the capital charge in the courts and ultimately are followed by the capital sentence when they apply to younger persons, generally arise in connection with sexual offences. That indicates that we ought to be inclined to be a little more tolerant perhaps in respect of the younger person than in regard to the older person. Should I be wrong if I submitted that, after all, the young person passes through certain psychological experiences to which the older person is no longer subject? These intense experiences which are present to the younger person ought to make older persons who have passed through and left them behind far more generous and tolerant in their judgment concerning the young person. I know that hon. Members who uphold these conditions say: "Yes, but why should you entertain this tenderness concerning the murderer when you ought to bear in mind the murdered person and those dependent on him?" I do not minimise the strength of that argument, but all the same I may shift the argument on to a higher plane. Who are we after all, and what is society, to arrogate to itself that right to declare that any person under the age of 21 shall no longer have offered an opportunity of repentance? I consider that society undertakes the very gravest responsibility in insisting upon such an inexorable judgment as that upon an errant individual.

I for my part say quite earnestly and strongly, that, however great may be the authority vested in society, as such, concerning peccant individuals, it cannot arrogate to itself the right of depriving an individual of the opportunity sooner or later of repentance for his single individual acts.

There is another observation which I would like to make in regard to this matter. If the individuals in society who believed in the retention of capital punishment were themselves called upon to carry out the judgment I think they would show strong objection to it, and, after all, is not the method of demanding the execution of the punishment a vicarious one? We do not do it, but we hire people for the job, and, after all, however, strong may be our convictions upon this matter, have we the right to hire any man, however willing he may be, to execute for us a final and conclusive judgment in this way by depriving an individual finally of his life and of his existence? I have in my time stood upon a scaffold, and I cannot forget the sense of horror with which I was possessed when I thought of the horrible task which society imposed upon the executioner in pulling the lever, and suddenly depriving an individual person of his life. I cannot believe that any society, however grave may be its resentment of the crime of murder, can be endowed with so inexorable a right as that. For these and many other reasons, I heartily support the Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. McGOVERN

I rise to support the Amendment, and I recognise at the same time that this question is surrounded with very special difficulties. I realise quite well that the question is what the age should be, and that, in the minds of those who believe in the hanging of an individual convicted for murder, the question of age plays a very big part. I recognise it is not permitted to discuss the question of capital punishment. Personally, I am against it entirely, but, realising that society at the present moment is in favour of a continuation of this method of exacting a life for a life, I go on the premise that it is being continued and, therefore, I plead for an extension of the age in order to arrive at what I believe to be the age of reason. I realise that there are crimes which maybe committed by the young that are very vicious. I shall, in passing, refer to two outstanding crimes to my mind, one the recent Clydebank murder where a young man was murdered in the prime of life, and I must confess, whatever my opinions may be, I feel a sense of abhorrence at that brutal murder no matter who committed the crime. The other was the murder of the police constable on the road by two men Brown and Kennedy. The murder of Police Constable Gutteridge whom they shot through the eye. I look upon those two crimes as being atrocious in the extreme, and, while I have peculiar views in the opinion of certain sections of this House, I recognise that in society people who commit crimes of that character have got to be dealt with in some way.

I cannot plead in this Amendment, as I did in the last one, that I have any personal knowledge or experience, because up to the moment I have never been sentenced to death. I want to say, however, that I have seen young men tried in the courts, and I always feel a deep sense of responsibility when I see young men under the age of 21 either being tried in the Courts in Glasgow or being sentenced to death. There might be some justification in regard to the last Amendment for saying that if boys of from 8 to 14 years of age are caught they should undergo some punishment, but in this Amendment we are not suggesting that those who are guilty of crime should escape punishment. Looking at this from a very detached point of view, I question which is the worst punishment, hanging or being kept in penal servitude for 15 or 20 years. I would like to say, in passing, that I have always argued against the taking of human life either by a nation or by an individual. I recognise that during the War many young men went out to take human life and were encouraged to do so, but I would point out that many of those who encouraged them then would hold up their hands in holy horror if these men indulged in an escapade now. If a youth in a moment of passion, or during a period of mental derangement, commits a crime, are we going to say that there is no possibility of that individual, even after a period of 15 or 20 years, coming back to society and leading the life of a good citizen? I want to plead with the House in this matter—I am sorry it is so late, but it is not our fault—and I want to ask the Home Secretary to recognise that we are not pleading for the abolition of punishment; it is only the question of the age of the individual, and, while the Committee recommended 18, we suggest that 21 is a more reasonable age. I myself lived for a year or two in Queensland, where capital punishment was abolished entirely, and it had a lower record of murders than any of the other States in Australia, in which capital punishment was in operation. I was a very strongly convinced opponent of capital punishment, and the only thing that has shaken my objection to it is that since coming here I have seen two front benches of Cabinet Ministers in this House. At the same time, much as I loathe their tactics and their policies, I do not think that I could be tempted to take the lives even of Cabinet Ministers. I do plead for this extension of the age from 18 to 21, which I think is a reasonable proposition in every shape and form.

Question put, "That the word 'eighteen' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 32.

Division No. 180.]	AYES.	[1.22 a.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Albery, Irving James	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Hanley, Dennis A.	Rankin, Robert
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ray, Sir William
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Hornby, Frank	Remer, John R.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)	Horobin, Ian M.	Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Bilndell, James	Hutchison, W. D. (ESSEX, Romi'd)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Bossom, A. C.	Ker, J. Campbell	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Kimball, Lawrence	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Knatchbuil, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Salt, Edward W.
Buchan, John	Knebworth, Viscount	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Leckie, J. A.	Samuel, Samuel (Wordsworth, Putney)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Scone, Lord
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Levy, Thomas	Selley, Harry R.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Lieweilln, Major John J.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Clayton Dr. George C.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Mabane, William	Slater, John
Cooke, Douglas	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Craven-Ellis, William	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Soper, Richard
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)	Maciean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Maitland, Adam	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Margesson, capt. Henry David R.	Stanley, Hon. O. F G. (Westmorland)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Stones, James
Drewe, Cedric	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Duggan, Hubert John	Milne, Charles	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Sutclifte, Harold
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Molson. A. Hugh Eisdale	Tate, Mavis Constance
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Morning, Adrian C.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Morrison, William Shephard	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Fox, Sir Gilford	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Franc's E.	North, Captain Edward T.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Nunn, William	Weymouth, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Giuckstein, Louis Halle	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Goff, Sir Park	Palmer, Francis Noel
Goldie, Noel B.	Patrick, Colin M.
Gower, Sir Robert	Pearson, William G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Petherick, M.	Mr. Harcourt Johnstone and Mr. Womersley.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Harris, Sir Percy	McKie, John Hamilton
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hirst, George Henry	Martin, Thomas B.
Briant, Frank	Holdsworth, Herbert	Maxton, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Parkinson, John Allen
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Rathbone, Eleanor
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Logan, David Gilbert
Grenfell, David Rees (Giamorgan)	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, Thomas W.	McEntee, Valentine L.	Mr. Price and Mr. Tinker.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	McGovern, John

CLAUSE 20.—(Notice to local authority of charges against and applications relating to children and young persons.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, to leave out the words "charged with any offence", and to insert instead thereof the word "brought".

This and nine other Amendments to Clause 20 which stand in my name look very formidable, but they are in fact nothing more than drafting Amendments. It may, however, be convenient if I say a few words on the whole of them together. They are designed to deal with two points raised since the Committee stages. The object of the Clause is to ensure that notice is served on local authorities and on probation officers when young offenders are brought before a court. There is some doubt, however, as the Bill is drafted, whether the obligation to serve notices does not extend only to cases arising from charges. The obligation to serve notices exists both in charges and in summons, and these drafting Amendments are partly to make that plain.

The other point with which these Amendments deal is the form of the notification. Hon. Members will notice that in the Clause, as at present drafted, it is necessary to serve notice in a prescribed form. We have found out that it is often the practice, as for instance in Manchester, for an official of the local Education Authority to call in at the central police station in the morning and to be told what cases are coming on. It is obviously a simple and satisfactory form, but it would not in fact be carrying out the obligation in the prescribed form as the Bill is drafted. The effect of the Amendments is simply to put the obligation on the police to give the notification and not in the prescribed form. I hope with this explanation the House will accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 24, after "1848", insert the words: in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him.

In line 27, leave out the words "cause a notice in the prescribed form, stating," and insert instead thereof the words "forthwith notify".

In line 30, leave out the words "to be served forthwith" and insert instead thereof the words "or justices".

In line 31, leave out the word "on" and insert instead thereof the word "to".

In line 34, leave out the word "on" and insert instead thereof the word "to".

In line 36, leave out the word "on" and insert instead thereof the word "to".

In page 14, line 1, leave out the words "notice as aforesaid", and insert instead thereof the word "notification".

In line 6, leave out the words "a charge is preferred", and insert instead thereof the words: the child or young person is accused of an offence.

In line 10, leave out the words "have been served with a notice", and insert instead thereof the words "have received a notification".—[Mr. Stanley].

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move in page 14, line 21, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that a local authority shall be under no obligation to make investigations as to the home surroundings of children or young persons in any petty sessional division in which by direction of the justices or probation committee arrangements have been made for such investigations to be made by a probation officer. The object of this Amendment is to prevent over-lapping between the local authorities and the probation officers. At present, under the Clause the obligation is put on the local authorities to make inquiries in all cases except those of a trivial nature, and it is then the case that the magistrates order the probation officers to make inquiries into the whole circumstances surrounding these cases. The object of this proviso is that in such cases the local authority need not be under any obligation to make the inquiries which are already being made by the probation officers. It will enable arrangements to be come to between the local authorities and the probation officers, so that the same work is not done by both.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(General provisions as to orders committing children and young persons to care of fit persons.)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS

I beg to move in page 15, line 8, at the end, to insert the words: (3) The court shall, before making the order, endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion of the boy or girl and the order shall embody a declaration with respect thereto. I move this Amendment on the ground that it is most important when the arrest of any child or young person takes place particulars should be taken of the religion of the child, and that a statement should be docketed with the orders and passed along until the child is free from all connection with the law and is returned to its parents. If that is done, it will ensure that the child's religion should not be in any way tampered with.

Mr. HANNON

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope very much that it will be accepted. I am sure it will give particular satisfaction to large numbers of people that the religion of the child who unfortunately comes within the ambit of the law should be carefully looked into.

Mr. STANLEY

It was, of course, our intention to safeguard the religious teaching of the children in all cases of this kind, and I think, in fact, we have made that clear in the Bill. It is quite true, however, that in its wording we have omitted this particular provision which appeared in the Childrens Act of 1908. It is always the case when there is a change of wording, that people are afraid that it is to be followed by some change of policy. That is not our intention, and I shall be glad, if it in any way reassures my hon, and gallant Friend, to accept this form of words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, to leave out the words "with the consent of the boy or girl".

This and the following Amendment are being moved in consequence of the promise I gave to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) during the Committee Stage. Hon. Members will see that the Clause deals with the duties of fit persons to whose care these children are committed. The hon. Member moved that before a child could emigrate the Secretary of State should obtain the consent of the child and also that of the parent. I accepted in Committee that part of his Amendment dealing with the consent of the boy or girl, because that is the administrative practice of the Home Office, but I pointed out, in regard to children who go abroad, that there might be cases where a child might have been committed to the care of this fit person on the ground that the parents were not fit to exercise control, and that it would be quite wrong to make it necessary for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of parents who might not have seen their children for some years or who had proved incapable or unwilling to exercise their parental control. I have made it clear that, before permission is given for emigration, every effort will be made to find the parents and to consult them, although receiving their consent is not to be a condition of the approval of the Secretary of State. The Amendments do provide that there shall be consultation with the parents where it is practicable, that is, where the parents can be traced. I believe that the form of Amendment I move fully meets the pledge I gave to hon. Members, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. McGOVERN

In the case of children who have been taken away from their parents and boarded out and in whose case the parents might in later years have the right to apply to the court for their restoration, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, even though the parents may have been guilty of an offence, they will be consulted before anything is done? Will his Amendment provide for that? I understand that it provides for a boy or girl being sent abroad, and I am asking for an assurance that, in cases where the parent has committed an offence and the children are taken away from them and boarded out in homes, the parents will be consulted before the child is sent away.

Mr. BRIANT

I am perfectly satisfied with the wording of the Amendment. Those cases where the children are taken away from the parents are usually very bad cases. In many such cases it is best for the children to be emigrated, because often the parents desire to recover them when they are able to go to work. I am a little doubtful about consulting the parents in that type of case. In bad cases they are only too anxious to find out where their children are in order to recapture them, and the best thing is to keep them out of reach of their parents.

Mr. McGOVERN

May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. STANLEY

I can only answer by leave of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that he need have no fear. The Amendment I have moved is exactly to the purpose he demands, that where the children are committed to the care of a person they shall not be emigrated unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the children themselves consent and that the parents themselves have been consulted. The hon. Member below the gangway need have no fear either. I made it quite clear that the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the views of the parents nor, in the course of consulting them, is he bound to disclose where the child is at the moment. All this Amendment does is to enable the Secretary of State to see what the parents are like and whether their views are worth following. If not, the Secretary of State still has power to sanction their emigration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 32, at the end, insert the words: Provided that the Secretary of State shall not empower a person to arrange for the emigration of a boy or girl unless he is satisfied that the boy or girl consents, and also that his or her parents have been consulted, or that it is not practicable to consult them."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Period of detention in approved school.)

Mr. LOGAN

I beg to move, in page 20, line 18, to leave out the word "until," and to insert instead thereof the words: for such period as the court may direct but in no case after. I would like to deal with this and the following Amendment together. If these two Amendments are accepted, the Clause will read as follows: Where a court order a child to be sent to an approved school, the order shall be an authority for his detention in an approved school for such period as the court may direct but in no case after the expiration of a period of three years from the date of the order. The Bill fixes the period of detention at three years, but, if these two Amendments are accepted, they will give the court discretion to order detention for a period of less than three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the two Amendments.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

I hope that the House will reject this Amendment, because it upsets fundamentally the whole conception of approved schools. The hon. Member seeks in his Amendment to give a discretion to the magistrates who try the case to fix the length of detention in an approved school. If it were a case of sentencing a person and not of sending him to an approved school, that would be all right, because the court who try the offence can measure the sentence, not from the point of view of the reformative effect on the offender, but from the point of view of the gravity of the crime committed. They are, of course, in a position to judge that. We want to get away from the purely penal ideal when dealing with approved schools and to realise that we are not sending them away for so many years, but to give them a chance in life and a better prospect of making good when they come out. It is clear that the magistrates who decide the case are not the best people to be given the discretion as to how long a child should be in the school. The length of his stay does not depend on the gravity of the case, but on the progress he makes.

We believe that this is an infinitely better system than the present system and will tend not to longer, but to shorter periods of detention in the school. We give the magistrates no discretion. Their order is detention for three years in an approved school, but, on the other hand, we give the Secretary of State a discretion which he had not before to license out. The discretion we hold is better exercised by those who can watch the boy's progress in the school than by those who can only exercise it in view of the gravity of the offences committed. I hope that the House will agree that this will not prevent, but will help, the experiment we propose to make of much shorter terms in approved schools. This can only be done by the discretion of those who have watched the progress of the boys in the schools and not by those who can only measure the gravity of the offence.

Mr. LOGAN

I am very grateful to the Undersecretary for his statement and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 20, to leave out lines 23 to 27.

These lines are only in as a result of a printing mistake. They were moved out, in fact, in Committee as a consequence of my having accepted an Amendment which raised the age in line 21 from 14 to 15, and this provision thereupon became inoperative. It would, of course, have been possible to avoid the Amendment by reprinting the Bill, but it seemed easier to have this Amendment which should recommend itself to economically-minded Members of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to Affiliation Orders.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 24, line 29, at the end, to insert the words: (d) section one of the Affiliation Orders Act, 1914 (which relates to the duties of collecting officers), shall not apply in relation to the affiliation order, but nothing in this paragraph shall affect any powers of any court under section thirty of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, to order payments to be made through an officer of the court or any other specified person or officer. This is really a purely machinery Amendment which deals with collections under affiliation orders. The first part of the Amendment is required, because at the present moment it is necessary for the officer of the Court who collects the money due under an affiliation order from the person on whom the order is served to pay the money over to the person entered in the affiliation order. Here we are dealing with cases in which the child is removed from the mother, and an order has been made diverting the money from the mother to the new guardians. We want the officer of the Court to pay the money over direct to the new guardians. The other section is to make it possible still to employ the officer of the Court in making the payments over. It is obviously an advantage that you should not have direct contact between the person from whom the child has been taken and the person to whose care it has been committed. Payment is better through the officer of the Court.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Notification of Voluntary Homes.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 34, line 33, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that this Part of this Act shall not apply to any institution, house, or home certified or approved by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1927, unless children or young persons who are not mental defectives within the meaning of those Acts are received therein. I move this Amendment to make certain that, when we undertake the mew duty imposed upon us to inspect voluntary homes, there should be no overlapping and that we are not placing upon ourselves the obligation to inspect homes already inspected by other Government Departments. These institutions to whom this applies are institutions certified by the Board of Control and are under the inspection and supervision of that Board. This only applies to institutions inspected by statutory provisions and is to prevent overlapping.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Inspection of Homes.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 35, line 7, after the word "institution," to insert the words: and to make any examination into the state and management thereof and the condition and treatment of the children and young persons therein which he thinks requisite. This Clause, dealing with the voluntary homes, imposes, first, the obligation on the voluntary home of notifying the Home Office of its existence. We have then taken power for the Home Office inspector to enter any one of these homes on the register. Possibly the power to enter is not sufficient, and we ought to make it plain that the inspector of these voluntary homes will not only have the right to enter but to make the inspection he requires. Probably he would have had it under the old words, but, when undertaking new duties of this kind, it is better to put it beyond doubt what our powers are, and this Amendment will give the inspector power to make thorough examination of the voluntary homes.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Restrictions on employment of Children.)

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I beg to move, in page 36, line 37, to leave out the word "twelve", and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."

The Amendment stands in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would desire us to take this Amendment and the succeeding one together—in page 36, line 38, to leave out from the word "employed" to the end of the Subsection.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

Yes.

Mr. JONES

Clause 48 at present proposes that no child under the age of 12 shall be employed. We here depart from the discussion of the employment of young persons, and now approach the discussion of the employment of children. We take strong exception to the employment of children of 12. We think that the minimum age should be 14. There is a proviso that children under 12 may be employed by their parents and guardians. Twelve is the maximum, not the minimum age, and children of very tender years may be employed so long as they are employed by their parents or guardians. I need not argue this question at any length, because it is very obvious, whether the child is employed by the parent or guardian or not, and it is a very extensive power for anybody to be able to employ a child at the tender age of six or even below that age, for there is no minimum age stipulated in the Clause. The time is so far advanced that I feel indisposed to develop this matter further. It seems to us so apparent, obvious and demonstrably right that it is not necessary to develop any case in support of the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

2.0 a.m.

I do not think it is necessary for me to make a very long speech. Fourteen years is early enough for anybody or girl to go to work. There is not a man or a woman in the House of Commons who would send any of his or her children out to work before fourteen years of age, and, therefore, they have no right to send out working-class children earlier than that. It would be all right if there was a scarcity in the land, but there is not a scarcity of anything or a scarcity of labour. There is no scarcity of people to do the work. We have more people to do work in this country than we can find work for, and, surely we are not asking too much for working-class children, in 1932, when we ask that they shall not be allowed to work before they are 14 years of age. That is surely early enough. Sixty years ago they turned out to work at eight years of age, but at that time we had not the great economic development that we have today, when machines and man's ingenuity have adapted the resources of nature and have made nature do man's work, so that it is unnecessary to have children doing work to-day.

I support this Amendment in the interests of the rising generation. It is surely in their interests that this should be done, and I would remind the House that those who struggle for futurity can never be defeated. I ask the Members of this House if they would send their own boys and girls out to work at 12 years of age? I put it to the Under-Secretary of State if he would send a boy or girl out to work at 12 years of age? He would do nothing of the kind. There is not a man or a woman in the House who would do it, and they have no right to do it to my class, because that is what they are doing here. I would appeal to the House not to do this wrong. We are trying to give the House a conscience in this matter. I agree that it is a late hour, but in this Bill we are discussing matters which will have a very serious effect on the lives of the working-class, and, therefore, I have very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. TINKER

I am very sorry we are discussing an important part of the Bill at this time of the morning, for this is one of those questions on which we feel we ought to express our point of view. The same arguments that have been used earlier in the night can be used to support this Amendment that, while there is so much surplus labour in the market, there is no need for the young members of families to go out to work. I know the Under-Secretary will point out that many struggling families are looking forward to the time when the children will bring in a little money. That argument has always had some weight with the working-class families, but, if Parliament set about protecting the young life of the country, and they can do so in this Bill, it will be a great incentive to get a living wage for the parents. So long as the children bring in a little it may be argued that the wages of the father can be kept down to a lower level. I have always held the view that the wage of the parent should be sufficient to keep the children until they arrive at a mature age. We have proposed the age of 14, but I am not satisfied with that; I think it should be higher. We can only use the argument, that a great number of people on the opposite side of the House will not allow their children to go to work at 14 or 16, and, if that is good for one section of society, then it is good for the working-class. We are asking that the children of our people should have a greater time at school in order to get a better education than they can get at present.

Mr. McENTEE

I would like to impress upon members of the House the necessity of accepting this Amendment. The Bill does give some extra protection to children than they are getting now, but it is still possible for a child to have to go to school for seven hours, to work for two hours, and after that to do home work, and that means eleven or twelve hours actual work a day. That need not be stressed; everybody knows it. There is not a Member in this House who would permit his own child to be compelled to work in circumstances like that, and the House cannot evade the responsibility they are taking now if they compel these children to perform tasks which they would not deside their own children to perform.

We have been considering the conditions of the children who have been sent to approved homes, and it is well-known that in those homes conditions are tolerated that would not be permitted for children who remain outside them. We are apparently going to allow the children who have not committed any offence to endure these conditions. I do not think the House ought to permit that, and I hope we shall take at least one step forward in this direction by inserting 14 years instead of 12. Every hon. Member has seen the conditions now prevailing when, if you go out early in the morning, you see little children who have been tumbled out of bed against their will and are half asleep. I know of instances of parents who could very well do without the small earnings their children can bring in but who, because of their grasping nature, send the children out to deliver papers or assist in delivering milk. Then, after the children come home again in the afternoon, they have again to go back and work. To-day it is difficult for adults or young persons who have just left school to get jobs, and young persons leaving even the central schools or secondary schools, with their better training, are positively unable to find any place in the market to-day. With that state of things existing, and likely to increase, I think it is a scandal that we should allow young children to be employed in any capacity during their school hours.

Mr. STANLEY

I quite appreciate that the brevity with which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) moved this Amendment in no way represents the importance which he attaches to it. We had the same Amendment in Committee, and it was evident from the discussion then with what feelings he and his friends regard it. I would, however, point out that, although it is true that some employment is allowed to children after the age of 12, it is subject to a very strict system of dual control, both by by-laws of the local authority and by the statutory limitation to which no by-law can dispense. That, I think, answers the point made by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that this is one of the ways of absorbing surplus labour. It is quite abvious that no adult could find a job at a living wage which could be performed under the restrictions laid down in this Clause.

Mr. McENTEE

I referred rather to the children who have just left school and cannot find jobs.

Mr. STANLEY

I doubt if such jobs would be satisfactory even for children who have just left school—a job that is done by a child of 12 during two hours, one in the morning and one in the evening. That is not likely to afford a satisfactory opening for potential full-time workers. In regard to the reference made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly to the second Amendment—the power of parents to employ their children—he said that, as far as the Statute is concerned, they can be employed at any age. That is true, but only as the result of by-laws which have to be submitted to, and confirmed by, the Home Office, and it has been our administrative practice never to sanction a by-law for the employment of children under 10, except in two or three cases such as hop picking or fruit picking, where the parents are going to the fields to work themselves and, as they have no one with whom to leave the children, want to take them with them.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) really put his finger on the point when he asked if I would like, as a child of 12, to go out to work. Obviously, my answer is "No." But, even if I did not like going out to work, I might well prefer to do that small amount of work in child occupation than to sacrifice the money that that work brings in and which makes for all the difference to the comfort of the home. When the hon. Member talks about the same rights for the children of all classes, I must point out that there is nothing that puts any statutory compulsion on the children of the working classes to go out to work under 14 any more than there is any Statute which prevents the children of the better-off and luckier classes from going to work before that age. That is really the point. We are not discussing the whole of our economic system, nor the provision in all homes of larger incomes that would make statutory provisions unnecessary because there would be no incentive. What we have really to consider is whether the existing system is doing such harm that we have got to deprive homes of the income that this work brings in. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will agree with me, from his experience at the Board of Education, that there is no substantial evidence that the limited amount of employment allowed really does harm to the health of children. Although we may all hope for better economic standards such as would enable working-class homes to dispense with sending their children out to work, until that Utopia arrives I do not think there is anything in the nature of harm being done to children that justifies us in depriving these homes of that income.

Mr. LANSBURY

As we are going to divide on this Amendment, I think I might say a few words on the subject. The Under-Secretary has, I think, rather missed the point. It may very well be that the economic conditions of the family at the moment are the compulsory force that drives the children into work or the parents into allowing them to go to work, but in dealing with this question the House, when it comes face to face with those conditions, has passed them by for the sake of the children. To-day we are setting up, in a way, a new charter for children, and to a certain extent trying to improve what has already been done. I think it is a pity that we have, as it were, stabilised the age of 12. I did not have a hard time when I was young. I always had plenty to eat, I had a decent home and slept in a decent bad, but when I was young it was the custom for quite reasonably-off people of the working classes to let their children go to work at a very early age. I went to work very early in a coal merchant's office, and during that job I got a certain amount of alertness and initiative perhaps, but I was robbed of a very great deal of a boy's life. We are children only once—at any rate, until we get old, when they say we have our second childhood—and if you rob a child of one year or one month of its life, you can never give it back. That is the great argument for giving all children an equal chance.

It may be a very pleasant thing when we are young to have the advantage of leisure, pleasure, and games as well as education, but whatever sort of by-laws you make you are going to say to the child what no mother would ever say if she had a free choice, namely, that the child is to work half the time and go to school half the time. That is a perfectly brutal thing to say to a child, and no mother would ever say it to any child of hers of her own free choice. If you impose economic conditions on them so that it is a question of starvation or semi-starvation and of doing part-time work and part-time school, obviously the child has to choose it. I should have chosen it when I was young, and so would the hon. Gentleman, but in this case we should say to-night that in the opinion of the House of Commons no child should be allowed to work under 14 years of age. I cannot for the life of me see, when you are dealing with this matter, how anyone can conscientiously vote for a lower age.

The hon. Gentleman said that the work that they do would not be done by anyone else older. I have papers delivered at home, and it is quite a young man who delivers them in the morning and again in the evening. A few years ago it would have been a little bit of a kid about so high. It is only a question of getting it organized, and it can be done. On the score of whether the parents can or cannot do without the money this is a difficult matter, but the age in the hon. Gentleman's own county was raised years ago, and the very arguments which the hon. Gentleman has used to-night were used then. You have only to read the Debates on employment of children and women to know that all these arguments were used then. I think it is a very great pity that we cannot agree to make it 14 years, for I think that is low enough. I have told the House at what age I went to work. Luckily for my children, they did not have to go to work at that age. As I said before, the child is only a child once in the ordinary sense, and anyone who votes for taking away one hour of its life is robbing the child of its birthright and of something which can never be given back.

Mr. McGOVERN

I desire to support the Amendment. In spite of the late hour, I feel compelled to say a word or two in relation to this matter. I am absolutely amazed that the Government are resisting the Amendment. No matter what they have done on any previous Amendment, I regard this one as being the most important Amendment which has been moved in the debate so far. It is extremely brutal that it should go out to the world that this great British nation stands for exploiting child labour in this country and that we are to allow the nation or the localities or individuals to employ boys and girls at the early age of 12. I know, as well as does the Leader of the Opposition, the effects of this question of child employment. When I was 11 years of age I was employed in going round with the morning rolls. I got up at four in the morning and reported to a bake-house in the Shettleston area at half-past four. I went out with a basket of rolls and went round to the farmhouses and houses because the citizens wanted hot rolls. I rose at four in the morning and finished with my rolls at half past eight. I then went home, had my breakfast, and had to report at school at half past nine, attending school the whole day. I know from practical experience that I was not in the position to absorb the ordinary education completely because of the exploitation I had received at that early hour of the morning. When it came to the question of being instructed in school, I was exhausted physically, even though I was a strong boy, and I was not able to absorb the education.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. Member does not suggest that what he suffered from would be possible under the existing law?

Mr. McGOVERN

No, I am not suggesting that it can be repeated in the extreme form of that time, but I do say that the exploitation, no matter in what form, which goes on is bound to affect the child and its education. Further than that, at present you have home lessons, but during the period I was at school we had no home lessons. At a later period I went round with the newspapers, and then I worked with a grocer. I reported at the grocer's at five in the evening after returning from school and worked until 10 o'clock at night. On Saturday I reported at the grocer's shop at half past seven in the morning and worked all day until one o'clock on the Sunday morning. All this was for the large wage of half-crown a week. No doubt it was due to economic reasons that I was compelled to do that but I do say, on reflection, that it would have been much better to have done without that half-crown altogether and to have allowed me to continue in the ordinary course. Schemes are being devised, as in the Glasgow area, to employ unemployed youths in going round with newspapers at a reasonable hour, and they do it in this way: They add one penny per week to the charge made to the persons who have newspapers delivered in order to pay for the delivery, and thus to a certain extent child labour has been avoided. It may be argued that owing to economic reasons and the national crisis things have to be cut down, but surely there is no person in this House who can advance a reasonable case for the employment of children under the age of 14 years who are attending school?

The ordinary child can only absorb the education that is offered and needs a margin of safety for recreation. If you encroach on that, you are acting to the detriment of the child, of the community, and of the State. In these days, when we recognise the value of education and the necessity of giving the child an opportunity in the school, we ought to lay it down as a hard and fast rule that no child should be employed at an earlier age than 14. That is a most reasonable request, and I am amazed that any Minister should in these days resist an Amendment to that effect. The Under-Secretary of State made no case at all against it, though no doubt he made the best case he could. He talked about giving a shilling or two to subsidise the income of the family. Surely we have not reached a state when we are going to argue that the only way in which this civilised community can be carried on is by send-

Division No. 181.]	AYES.	[2.32 a.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Hanley, Dennis A.	Pearson, William G.
Albery, Irving James	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Petherick, M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Powell, Lieut.-Cot. Evelyn G. H.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Hornby, Frank	Rankin, Robert
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Horobin, Ian M.	Ray, Sir William
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portwn'th, C.)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Remer, John R.
Braithwaits, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Ker, J. Campbell	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Kimball, Lawrence	Runge, Norah Cecil
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Knebworth, Viscount	Salt, Edward W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Scone, Lord
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Levy, Thomas	Selley, Harry R.
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cooke, Douglas	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Craven-Ellis, William	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Slater, John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Mabane, William	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Soper, Richard
Denman, Hon. R. D.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Drewe, Cedric	McKie, John Hamilton	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Duggan, Hubert John	Maitland, Adam	Stones, James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Martin, Thomas B.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Sutcliffe, Harold
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Thomas, James P, L. (Hereford)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morrison, William Shephard	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Nathan, Major H. L.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
God, Sir Park	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Weymouth, Viscount
Goldie, Noel B.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	North, Captain Edward T.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Gower, Sir Robert	Nunn, William	Womersley, Walter James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Palmer, Francis Noel	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Patrick, Colin M.	Captain Sir George Bowyer and and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Logan, David Gilbert
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McEntee, Valentine L.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES -
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	McGovern, John	Mr. Edwards and Mr. Tinker.
Harris, Sir Percy	Maxton, James

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to move, in page 37, to leave out lines 6 to 9.

The lines which I propose to leave out provide that

ing out children to earn 2s. a week by the delivery of newspapers, rolls, or milk. I cannot conceive the type of mind which can resist such an Amendment, and I say that the Government that can resist it is fit for the Middle Ages and not for the twentieth century.

Question put, "That the word ' twelve ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 20.

by-laws made under the next succeeding Clause Section may authorise employment before the commencement of school hours on such a day for not more than one hour.

I do not think it requires much persuasion at this hour of the morning to get the House to realise what we are now asking. Here the Bill is making provision for little boys and girls, before going to school, to work for one hour. Surely the day has passed when this should be allowed. This House should retain its sanity amidst all the ups and downs it has had since the Bill came before it, and settle down, both men and women, to put their minds seriously to this Amendment. Members are taking a responsibility upon themselves if they throw out this Amendment in the same careless fashion as they have done all our previous Amendments. We have in your absence, Mr. Speaker, put forward one or two Amendments which had a very serious consequence to tens of thousands of children in this our native land, and you would think that it was we who were doing something wrong—the levity of the House, the noise, the genteel, gentlemanly manner in which the Minister has handled our position. But behind niceness is the subtle training of the ruined class of Britain.

Mr. SPEAKER

Is the hon. Member moving his Amendment?

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I am moving the Amendment standing in my name. I think the House should consider calmly what is involved here. In 1932 we are being told by the greatest authorities in the country, by all the great sportsmen who stand at that Box, that we are the only country in civilisation that is getting round the corner; that every country is worse off than we are. In fact, they tell us that other countries are envying the manner in which we handle this awkward, difficult, financial situation. Then we find these same boasters about what we are doing, and how we are superior to every other people on earth, trying to treat our children in this way. They are going to make the children, the weans, work an hour—make it the law of the land that they can still be worked an hour before they go to school.

The last Amendment we moved was turned down. It was to make the age 14 years. Boys and girls of 12 years of age are to be allowed to go to work for an hour before they go to school. It has not been my lot that I have had to go round with milk or papers in the morning, I was more fortunate. If you had been in the House, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovem) give his own personal experiences of what it means. Yet the Government still think of legislating in this brutal, callous, inhuman, unchristian manner, although there is no man or woman in this House who would think of sending their children out to work before they went to school. It is said that the parents are glad of this opportunity. Was there ever such an indictment of the present system that is being bolstered up? You are admitting this, because of the poverty, the starvation, and because you do not allow the working class enough wages to buy sufficient food for their little children—the Under-Secretary admits it—and then it is said that "Britons never, never shall be slaves." It is a proof that that is so much nonsense, although the poem was written by a fellow-countryman of mine and a Glasgow man.

We give an opportunity here of eliminating economic slavery as far as we can, but you refuse that and still wish to brand my class as slaves. You are going on with this as your forefathers did, and there was not a kick against them. But you can take it from me that the conditions which prevail to-day are rearing a type that will revolt against all this added injury. The conditions that prevail among the working class are of such a character that there is more healthy discontent to-day in Britain than there ever was in its history. If you recognised the conditions and helped them, quite possibly, even though unconsciously, you would create an atmosphere to counteract the terribly deep-seated discontent that is bound to boil over one of these days by the treatment that is meted out by the present Government. It may be it is being done in a gentlemanly way, but you are doing it nevertheless. I appeal to the House to vote for this Amendment, and to use its influence with the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to accept it.

Mr. McGOVERN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not desire to take part in any form of controversy, and will content myself with seconding the Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. TINKER

The Title of the Bill says, among other things, that it proposes to make better provision for the young. To give a child the opportunity of working an hour before school-time is not adequate protection, and I would urge that the Under-Secretary should either strike that out, or make the Bill a real, live one.

Mr. STANLEY

The House will, I think, excuse me from following too closely the interesting but rather wide survey by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) of our social and economic life and, particularly, the parts that dealt with our rivals abroad. Perhaps I may be permitted to confine myself more strictly to the Amendment. The House has already decided that, subject to certain provisions of certain by-laws, children may be employed between the ages of 12 and 14. In the same Clause there is a provision, to which there is no Amendment, that the employment should be limited to two hours a day. The only question we have now to decide, is whether one of these two hours which the children are to be permitted to work, shall or shall not be before the time of school, and the narrow ground which the House will have to decide is whether there is something particularly injurious to the health and interest of the child if one of the two hours of their employment is permitted before school hours.

I suggest that no evidence on that point has been brought before the House. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) will remember, questionnaires have been sent to local education authorities on this point, and the overwhelming number of replies stated that they had not experienced any prejudicial effect upon the health or the educational capacity of the children because of one hour's employment before school. Of course, from the recreational point of view, to which the right hon. Gentlemen the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier, if the one hour can be worked before school without prejudice to the health of the child the recreational facilities are increased by the fact that there can be only one hour's employment after school hours. In view of these facts, I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered in any way the case brought forward by my hon. Friend. He says that we have decided as to two hours per day, but I would point out that we have not done so, and that we are going to move that the two hours per day shall be taken out. Sub-section (3) comes next. The Under-Secretary says that we have decided that, but we are coming to it.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. member, I think, is mistaken. The Amendment he proposes to move afterwards is to Subsection (4), and the two hours he is going to move to leave out are the two hours on Sundays.

Mr. MAXTON

The Under-Secretary says that we have decided that the two hours are permissible. We have not decided that yet.

Mr. STANLEY

I said that the House has decided that employment should be allowed, and there is a subsequent provision, to which there is no Amendment, that it shall be for two hours.

Mr. MAXTON

That is a very different statement.

Mr. STANLEY

No.

Mr. MAXTON

I am always wrong; I am awfully dull.

HON. MEMBERS: Cheer up!

Mr. MAXTON

Yes, I have learned from a long experience that the House of Commons always gets very happy about 3 o'clock. We have all made up our minds that we have got to make the best of a bad business by then. Up to 2 o'clock we grumble, but after that we say "All is for the best." By this Amendment we are trying to equalise the conditions of working class people with the conditions of those who belong to better-off sections of the community. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) says that no person in easy circumstances is going to turn out his son or daughter under 14 to go with newspapers or milk or rolls in the early hours of the morning before breakfast. As a matter of fact, very few of us here turn out before 8 o'clock in the morning, and we think that it is preposterous to be asked to wait here after 11 o'clock. Yet a child that is doing a working day in school from 9 o'clock to 4 o'clock, is to be asked to turn out in the morning and to do additional tasks after school. I do not care how many questionnaires were sent out or how many answers were received. I am satisfied that no questionnaire was properly answered if it said that the youngster who has to earn money outside the school is on an equal footing with the child that has not to do those things. I do not believe that any person with genuine experience of education in elementary schools would commit himself to any such view.

I have sat on the education authority of Glasgow when we were framing bylaws under the existing legislation, and I know that there were always hardy types of successful business men who told us about what wonderful things they did when they were boys. They 'always said "Look at me! Look what I went through, and look at me now!" And one looked at them, and wondered. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and I will not contemplate one another too long, because we both find fault with each other. There is no educational test presently in existence that enables anyone to fill up a questionnaire honestly, and say that that extra work which a child does is not disadvantageous to his educational development. My experience of teaching was all against the view—there are no mathematical statistics of that sort of thing—that there was not a definite handicap against the youngster who had to engage in wage-earning employment, although the other youngster might lose more sweat through his games. There always seemed to me a definite lowering of vitality. There is also the getting to the job every morning at seven o'clock. The youngster goes to bed knowing that he has got to be at a certain place at a certain hour, and that is a definite nervous strain which remains with the child even when he is asleep. [Interruption.] I am surprised that a simple psychological fact of that description should be regarded as a joke by responsible Members of the House. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge to all of us that if we have got some responsible thing to do at a fixed time next morning, it has an effect on the nature of our night's rest. If that is true of adults, it is infinitely more true of immature children, and that nervous strain, continued for a period of time, does not make for the best development that we wish to see in the rising generation.

The psychological note that is struck in nearly every Clause of the Bill is wrong, and while I am glad that there are some restrictions—the child of to-day does not have to submit to the experience of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) or of men like Keir Hardie, who pioneered representation of our type in this House—I agree with my hon. Friends who say that, having regard to the huge surpluses of adult labour in this country, it should surely be possible to exempt children of 12 and 14 years of age from manual labour. There were a number of Conservative Members who, on what I regard as a less important matter, went into the Lobby and voted for something they believed in, and I want them now to consider whether this is not of sufficient importance also to justify them in trusting to their own conscience and intelligence, and voting in support of it so as to allow the children who are between 12 and 14 to get a sound night's sleep and to go to school fresh for their education as the main task of their day.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

It is rather important that I should make one observation in reference to a remark from the Under Secretary. I understood him to say that I was acquainted with some questionnaire which had been sent out recently by the Board of Education with regard to the question whether there were any deleterious effects upon children who performed some form of manual labour before school. I do not know to what questionnaire he refers. I can recall only one questionnaire issued in my time, and that was in regard to children who might be employed in connection with theatrical or other night performances. What the other questionnaire is I cannot recall. Therefore I cannot know what the answers to it were. I merely make that explanation, because I do not want it to be understood that I knew of some other questionnaire, and was a party to any of the replies to it.

Mr. STANLEY

I was making no point of it. I only mentioned that it had been sent out by the Board of Education, and that answers had been received. I did not know whether it was before the hon. Gentleman's time or not. It makes no difference to the answers received.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I am very sorry, indeed, that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I happen to be one of those who have followed this out in practice. The point I want to make is this: Has any thought been given to the child who, at the age of 11 or 12, goes to a secondary school and has to do an hour's work when he or she comes from school? Some children have, at least, half to threequarters of an hour's journey home, making it half-past five before they get home. They then have to do an hour's home work, and they

Division No. 182.]	AYES.	[3.15 a.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Pearson, William G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Hartley, Dennis A.	Petherick, M.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Boauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Rankin, Robert
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Ray, Sir William
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Hornby, Frank	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Horobin, Ian M.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Blindell, James	Horsbrugh, Florence	Remer, John R.
Bossom, A. C.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Ker, J. Campbell	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Kimball, Lawrence	Runge, Norah Cecil
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Knebworth, Viscount	Salt, Edward W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Leckie, J. A.	Scone, Lord
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Selley, Harry R.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Levy, Thomas	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Skeiton, Archibald Noel
Cooke, Douglas	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Slater, John
Craven-Ellis, William	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Soper, Richard
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Mabane, William	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Stones, James
Drewe, Cedric	McKie, John Hamilton	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	Strickland, Captain W. P.
Duggan, Hubert John	Maitland, Adam	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Tate, Mavis Constance
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Martin, Thomas B.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Weymouth, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Moreing, Adrian C.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Gluckstein, Louis Hall	Morrison, William Shephard	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Goff, Sir Park	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Womersley, Walter James
Goldie, Noel B.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	North, Captain Edward T.
Gower, Sir Robert	Nunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Captain Sir George Bower and
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.	Palmer, Francis Noel	Captain Austin Hudson.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Patrick, Colin M.

are entitled to some recreation. If you are to impose am hour's work on them, it means that they have to get to the job at seven in the morning and work until eight o'clock. As one who has had to do this, I became determined that no child of mine should have to go through the same thing. It is a great pity that in the British House of Commons we are to say that in order that people may provide a child with the necessary food, they must call upon that child to get up at seven in the morning and do an hour's work before going to school. I shall certainly support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 20.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Daggar, George	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Charles	McEntee, Valentine L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maxton, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Nathan, Major H. L.	Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. McGovern.
Harris, Sir Percy	Parkinson, John Allen

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to move, in page 37, line 18, to leave out the words "for more than two hours."

The purpose of the Amendment may be clearly seen by looking at the text of the Bill: No child shall be employed on any Sunday for more than two hours. We hold that no child should be employed on Sunday. If I tell the House that this is our last Amendment, and that we shall let Members go home to their beds if they accept it, perhaps the House will feel disposed to do so. I am not asking anything for myself by this Amendment; I am only asking this House to do what every Member would say he would do if he were asking for the votes of his constituents, that is, pass a law that no child shall be employed on a Sunday. There is no need for us to go over the whole ground again. We have tried every means we can think of and every art of persuasion. "Come, let us reason together" has been inculcated into us. We have reasoned and been reasonable. Jacob wrestled with an angel at the brook, and said that he would not let him go. I wish that he had come here and wrestled with the angels we have to wrestle with. Not only his thighbone but his heart would be broken.

I am firmly convinced, after having lectured this House for hour after hour, and after 10 years' experience of Parliament, that, of all the Parliaments from which I have tried to get concessions, the present House of Commons is the most hard-hearted of all. I never addressed a House that was less impervious to the appeal of the working class. This House has got the idea that it has a great majority and need not pay any attention to the voice of Labour, but it will have to have regard to the great mass of the people outside whom this Bill will affect. Instead of trying to make their lives a little better the Bill is making their lives worse. It is because we as Socialists believe that we are the joint heirs of a glorious inheritance that we are never tired of appealing to this House to give some concession to the working class. The section for whom I am now appealing is the weakest section of the working class—the little boys and little girls. We ask the House, for their sakes, to declare to the world that, as far as Britain is concerned, her children shall not be allowed to work on Sunday.

Surely that is not too much to ask? Unless you agree to that, where is all your enlightenment, all your Christianity, all your "love one another, as I have loved you"? When we ask hon. Members opposite to put into practice what some of the Tory Members of this House, including Cabinet Ministers, have the audacity to preach from the pulpit, what do they do? They smile, and smile. As Shakespeare said, One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. 3.30 a.m.

They are the villain, as far as my class is concerned. Let them grant me this one concession. I leave it entirely to their decency. It will be left for them to decide whether they know how to respond to the decency with which they have been treated.

Mr. McGOVERN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I look with interest to the Division Lobby to see all the people in that Lobby who voted against the Sunday cinemas. I certainly voted against that Bill and I could have given, if I had had the opportunity, very good reasons. I could give very good reasons to-night for passing this Amendment. I am logical in the fact that I voted against the Bill that evening, and I intend to vote against this Clause to-night. So far as the employment of children on Sundays is concerned, I would like to cut it out absolutely. It may be that there is something in the argument that you should allow the employment of children during the week or on Saturday, but, after all, it may be that, from the very fact that a boy has taken on employment of that character, he may be coerced by the very nature of things into employment on Sunday. That may be entirely against the child's ideas or the ideas of its parents. I am in favour of cutting it out completely. In the place where I reside there are boys who go round with icecream barrows on Sundays in summer. As I understand it, ice-cream is taken in order to cool oneself. I do not think there is any great necessity for that, because the National Government can tell people stories to make their blood run cold. Newspapers on Sunday mornings are brought by boys and girls. After all, the citizens of this country have their day's rest on Sunday, and if they must have their newspapers, what is to prevent them, if they cannot have them delivered by adult labour, from going to the shop themselves or sending their own children?

It is outrageous to employ these children on Sundays. Sometimes we hear the the old story about freedom and coercion, that we have changed this and that, but are you going to apply coercion to other people to compel them to cater for your wants? During the Sunday Cinema Bill we had a very big Lobby. I do not think there are as many votes in the House to-night on all sides as were recorded in the Lobby against the Cinema Bill. It proves the utter hypocrisy of a large section of the public's representatives. When they get a staged occasion for showing to the world their absolute contempt and antagonism to Sunday labour, they are prepared in a spectacular way to show to the Christian bodies that they stand against it. When it comes to the employment of boys and girls on Sundays to do the menial work, the scavenging work of society, they are prepared to employ them. There is no consistency in it. We should prohibit Sunday labour from being employed. But we might save ourselves from speaking. I recognise that no, concessions will be granted. As I understand Government carried on by local councils, you argue across the table, and if you can show some reason, then by the very fact of the reason you get support and from the other side concessions. I see no concessions granted in this House and that brings Parliamentary Government and constitutional Government into complete contempt. You are compelled to go about using Whips and pressure to get those behind you to go into the Lobby against their own minds. Time and again they go into the Lobby and do not know what they are voting for. The Whip tells them their duty and where to go. It reminds me of people in the factories where the bell or whistle goes to tell them they are hungry. Members come out of the Lobby and ask what they are voting about. In any local Government you get a great deal more from Tories than in this House. Although I have no great hopes of getting the Amendment accepted, we can at least show on what side of the dyke we stand.

Mr. McENTEE

With many other Members during the last few weeks I was associated with the Under-Secretary in discussing upstairs, and, prior to that, down here, the Sunday Cinemas Bill. During the discussion I took the point of view that cinemas ought to be open on Sundays. We were told that Sunday work of any description could not be agreed to by hon. Members who were very conservative about working on Sunday. I see very few of them here to-night. I do not hear their voices as I heard them with regard to the Cinemas Bill. It might be said that I was in favour of Sunday labour there and am opposed to it here. I was not in favour of Sunday labour necessarily, tout Sunday cinemas might involve Sunday labour. You are here asking children to work on Sundays. Is it in the interests of the children? Is it in the interests of the people who get Sunday papers or whatever it may be, or in the interests of anybody that you should allow children under 12 years of age to work on Sundays when everybody knows they do not want to work on Sundays? Everybody knows that if a law were passed to-night and this Amendment were included in it, and that they were not allowed to work any longer, there is not a soul in the country that would be worse off because we passed that law. If that be so, why on earth are we so innately cruel that we are determined to inflict on these children what we know to be a hardship, for no purpose that is of any value whatever to the community, to the Government, to the children or anybody else?

I am wondering why we did not get an avalanche of postcards from the Lord's Day Observance Society. Are they concerned only with the people who might work in cinemas on Sunday, while here we are allowing children to work seven days a week? There is no protest from the Lord's Day Observance Society in regard to these children working seven days a week every week of the year. I have not seen a postcard, nobody cares, the Churches are not troubled about it. They are participating in it, many of them; they are aiding and abetting the people using these children, and I am sorry to say that the Minister and the Government are lending themselves to this useless infliction on children of a seven-day working week. We compel others to see that men should have at least one day off in seven, but we are not prepared to do that for the children. This is one of the cruellest things that one could possibly contemplate, and it is amazing to me that the Minister should have decided not to make any defence of it. There is no argument that can be used for permitting children to work on Sundays, and I urge the Minister to make some concession to the Opposition and accept this Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

The hon. Gentleman has indulged a good deal in the words "cruelty" and "uselessness." He regards this provision as a very serious one indeed, but he did not pay quite so much attention to it during the last three years. I never heard of the hon. Gentleman putting any pressure on his Government in this matter.

Mr. McENTEE

I always impressed on every Government when I got the opportunity that I was against this kind of work.

Mr. STANLEY

I must point out that in the years 1929 to 1931, although many

Division No. 183.]	AYES.	[3.48 a.m.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Duggan, Hubert John
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Cooke, Douglas	Fox, Sir Gifford
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Craven-Ellis, William	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Bossom, A. C.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Goff, Sir Park
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Drewe, Cedric	Goldie, Noel B.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

of the hon. Member's friends were successful in the ballot for Private Bills, they could easily have introduced a Private Bill to remove what the hon. Member calls "useless cruelty," but I do not remember one of them making the attempt. I want the House, in coming to a decision, to remember that this point is really governed by the same principle which governed the decision on the previous Amendment. There is, of course, no question of compulsion. What we do is merely to give permission. I do not deny for a moment, in fact I think that people would like to see such an economic position, that the permission we give in this Clause would become a dead letter, and there would be no need of Amendments to remove it, because there would be no incentive. But we all know the facts of to-day, and those facts we have to face. I submit that the only question for the House to decide is whether in these cases the effect of this particular permission on the child is so harmful as to forbid households to supplement their income in any way, however necessary it may be. This work on Sundays is probably even more strictly regulated than any of the other provisions. Nearly every authority in the country has made by-laws to restrict this employment to two light industries, and permission only is granted which leaves practically the whole of the day free for the children. As far as the health of the children is concerned, as far as it interferes with the possibilities of getting education and recreational facilities, the House will realise that the two hours work on Sundays is less serious than on the two hours of the days he is attending school. I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 22.

Gower, Sir Robert	Maitland, Adam	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Salt, Edward W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwan)
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Martin, Thomas B.	Scone, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Selley, Harry R.
Hanley, Dennis A.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hellgere, Captain F. F. A.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Slater, John
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. B. (Ayr)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Moreing, Adrian C.	Soper, Richard
Hornby, Frank	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Horobin, Ian M.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romtord)	North, Captain Edward T.	Stones, James
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Nunn, William	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ker, J. Campbell	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Kimball, Lawrence	Palmer, Francis Noel	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Patrick, Colin M.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Knebworth, Viscount	Pearson, William G.	Tate, Mavis Constance
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Petherick, M.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Levy, Thomas	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Rankin, Robert	Weymouth, Viscount
Llewellin, Major John J.	Ray, Sir William	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Womersley, Walter James
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Remer, John R.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Mabane, William	Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-
McKie, John Hamilton	Runge, Norah Cecil	Colonel Sir Lambert Ward.

NOES.
Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)	Harris, Sir Percy	Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Holdsworth, Herbert	Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L.	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maxton, James
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Nathan, Major H. L.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-
		Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. McGovern.

CLAUSE 53.—(Restrictions on children taking part in entertainments.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 41, line 1, to leave out the words "or in any club where liquor is provided."

This Clause deals with restrictions on children taking part in entertainments. The House will see that we start with the assumption that children shall not take part in entertainments unless they are licensed and then we go on to provide that in certain cases licences shall not be necessary, as when the entertainment is being given for charitable objects, and, subject to certain restrictions, that the children shall not take part in more than six such entertainments. We restrict that further by saying that, even if those entertainments are for charity, if they are held in a public house they shall not count as free entertainments and be subject to licence. In Committee an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Lich-field (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) which had the effect of placing clubs where liquor is served in the same position as public houses. That Amendment was carried, but I now move to put the Bill back in its original form in order to get the opinion of the House on a question which, though not of very great importance in itself, forms rather a large precedent.

This will be, I think, the first time, if this Amendment as proposed by the Committee, is again accepted by the House, that we have placed in a Statute a club on exactly the same footing as a public house. Hitherto, we have always preserved the distinction between the two, treating the club more in the nature of the private residence. I do feel that such, a precedent can only be justified by rather substantial evidence that there is, in fact, a danger in allowing children to take part in entertainments at clubs. During the Committee stage, in the brief speech in which this. Amendment was: moved, no evidence whatever was brought forward of children suffering from taking part in occasional charity entertainments in clubs. What we are doing in this Clause is to protect children against exploitation, even if it is in the name of charity, and during the Committee stage I moved an Amendment increasing the restrictions by limiting the number of performances to six. That provision in itself is, I submit, enough to prevent any exploitation of the child.

4.0 a.m.

Therefore, in the absence of any real evidence to justify these words being retained, I ask the House not to depart from the way in which we have hitherto treated the question of clubs or to create what might prove a serious precedent when we have to deal in future with the whole question of the licensing of these institutions.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 56.—(Licences for training juveniles to take part in dangerous performances.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 43, line 20, to leave out the words "and a licence shall not be granted unless," and to insert instead thereof the words "but a licence shall not be refused if."

This Clause deals with the licensing which is necessary for the training of juveniles to take part in dangerous performances. During the Committee stage I promised to make an Amendment of this sort. The Amendment ensures that wherever the court is satisfied that the person to be trained, and on whose behalf somebody has applied for a licence, is fit to be trained, and that proper provision has been made to secure health and kind treatment, the licence must be granted without any discretionary power. We want to make certain that all that the court has to do is to ascertain the condition of health of the child, and make certain that proper treatment is given, and that there shall be no power to exercise what may be a personal predeliction as to acrobatic performances as a means of livelihood. This is carrying out the pledge which I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Interpretation of Part IV.)

Mr. DENMAN

I beg to move, in page 44, to leave out lines 16 to 19, and to insert instead thereof the words: the expression 'child' includes a person required to attend school under enactments relating to elementary education and the by-laws made thereunder. This Amendment provides a fresh definition of a child. I will not occupy the House with an exposition of the difference between the Home Office child and the Board of Education child, but there is a real point in this change of definition. The object is to provide that the dividing line between children and young persons should not be the dividing line of age, but should depend on whether the child is or is not at a public elementary school, in so far as this Part of the Bill is concerned, so that for by-law purposes a child should remain a child as long as it is attending an elementary school. The difference is not large, because the Bill as it stands provides that that shall be the case except in those areas where the child remains at school up to the age of 15. It is clearly undesirable that the protection given by Clauses 48 and 49 should not apply to the child who is at school even though over 15. One argument which will appeal very strongly both to the Home Secretary and to the Under-Secretary is that this is in line with the International Convention. Article 2 of that Convention says that children under 14 or over 14 who are still required by the national laws or regulations to attend primary schools, shall not be employed except under conditions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to have this opportunity to bring the Measure into line with a Convention which is approved by the great mass of civilization.

Dr. BURGIN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY

Under the existing law, and in the Bill as originally drafted, the protection afforded by the Clauses we have been discussing ceased on the 14th birthday of the child. During the Committee stage I acceded to the desire of the Committee and inserted a definition which continued the protection afforded beyond the 14th birthday to the end of the school term in which that birthday was reached. In doing so I met every practical point which is raised by this Amendment. There is no practical point in the hon. Member's appeal whatsoever. During the last few years some authorities have raised the school-leaving age to 15, and the situation of certain other special schools has altered, but not a single case has ever been brought to the notice of the Home Office where any difficulty has arisen. In fact, these employment conditions are not applicable at all to the cases of the special schools, such as the mental schools, which are mainly residential schools and in the cases where the school-leaving age has been raised to 15, a large number of exemptions have, of course, been granted for whole-time employment. No difficulty has arisen in regard to the employment of those who have remained at school in that period. In view of the fact that there is no practical object to be served by the Amendment, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Sir P. HARRIS

The hon. Gentleman really made a slip in reference to the special schools, which, he suggested, were mainly residential. Anybody who knows anything about them knows that they are not residential but day schools, and in nearly every case the children are required to stay until completing the 16th year. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has got away with the idea that special schools do not require protection. On the contrary, they require protection very much.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN

I am sure the hon. Member for South - West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) would not like to mislead the House. Many of these special schools are residential. They are not always schools for mentally defective children, and it is found that the children can be very usefully employed before their departure.

Mr. DENMAN

I recognise that the Under-Secretary has improved the existing law materially, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 67.—(Exemptions from Part 1 (Infant Life Protection) of Principal Act.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 51, line 9, at the end, to insert the words: or (d) which is an institution house, or home certified or approved by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1927, and in which no children or young persons who are not mental defectives within the meaning of those Acts are received. The object of this Amendment is to prevent over-lapping, and to exempt, under the Children Act, institutions which are managed by the Board of Control. The provisions of Part I of the Children Act which we have in mind are those which require notification to be given to the local authority of mentally defective children under nine, and which require that these children should be visited from time to time by the infant protection visitors of the local authorities. As the institutions to which this Amendment refers are already inspected by the different Government bodies, we feel it is unnecessary to have this provision for a second inspection, and I move the Amendment in order to prevent overlapping.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 51, line 15, at the end, to insert the words: (3) The provisions of Part I of the principal Act shall not apply in relation to any mental defective who is, with the consent of the Board of Control, under care elsewhere than in an institution, a certified house, or an approved home. This is exactly the same point as in the last Amendment. Where children are taken in, this prevents the double inspection both by the local authority and by the Board of Control.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Association of juveniles with adults in police station, courts, etc.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 55, line 4, to leave out from the beginning to the word "for," in line 5, and to insert instead thereof the words, "Arrangements shall be made."

Perhaps I might also refer to the other Amendment to this Clause. During the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird), and I pointed out that it was, in fact, the practice of the Home Office to insist that a girl, either when detained in a police court or when waiting should be under the care of a woman, and I promised that on Report stage I would turn this administrative practice into a Statutory declaration. That explains the second Amendment to this Clause, but when we were discussing this Amendment we discovered a slight error which had crept in. In the Clause, as now drafted, we had placed upon the police authorities the arrangements which had to be made, but for some of which the police authorities are not responsible, as they are matters for the prison authorities or the local authorities. In the circumstances, we propose to leave out any specific mention of the authority and simply say that "Arrangements shall be made," which places on each authority the responsibility for making the arrangments in the ambit over which they have control.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 55, line 11, at the end, insert the words: and for ensuring that a girl (being a child or young person) shall whilst so detained, being conveyed or waiting, be under the care of a woman."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 79.—(Provisions as to local authorities.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 57, line 2, at the end, to insert the words: An arrangement or scheme under this sub-section may provide for the exercise and performance of powers and duties by the urban district council either instead of, or as agents for, the county council, but notwithstanding anything in any such arrangement or scheme every county council shall remain accountable to the Secretary of State for all contributions paid in their county by parents and other persons in respect of persons committed to the care of local authorities or ordered to be sent to approved schools. This is purely a machinery Amendment. We desire to give to county councils the power to delegate the work of collecting contributions from parents and others to some of the smaller authorities in their area, but, at the same time, it is necessary that, as far as the Home Office is concerned, we should not have all these smaller local authorities accounting to us direct. The Amendment enables the county councils to use hese smaller authorities, but the county councils have to account direct to the Home Office.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 58, line 9, to leave out the word "relating," and to insert instead thereof the words "which require certin matters to be referred."

Perhaps it would be convenient if I mentioned this and the next three Amendments together. They are all machinery Amendments, and what they do is to allow the county council or county borough council to delegate particular powers to committees. The most important case we have in mind is that in many country areas the public assistance committee has had a large experience in boarding-out, and it is obviously important that they should carry out this work for the local authority. These Amendments will enable the council to delegate its authority, and will lead to greater elasticity in administration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 58, line 10, leave out the words "the council of a county or county borough," and insert instead thereof the words "a local authority."

In line 12, leave out the words "an education committee," and insert instead thereof the words "any committee appointed for the purposes of any other Act,"

In line 13, leave out the word "council," and insert instead thereof the word "authority."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 80.—(Special provisons as to the City of London.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move in page 58, line 20, to leave out from the beginning, to the word "be ", in line 22, and to insert instead thereof the words: The powers and duties of a local authority under this Act as respects young persons, and as respects street trading and the employment of children, shall, in the City of London. It was our intention in drafting this Bill to maintain the existing line of demarcation between the functions which are undertaken by the Common Council of the City of London and by the London County Council, but, owing to the fact that the London County Council are the elementary education authority of the City, we inadvertently imposed too great obligations on the Common Council. This Amendment restores the position, and leaves the division between these two authorities as it is at present.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of Principal Act.)

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 75, line 23, after the word "is," to insert the words "for any other reason."

The purpose of this Amendment, which is an Amendment to the Children Act, 1908, is to secure the attendance of a parent when, for some reason or another, the child is before the Court. As the Act is at present, it can be secured in some cases, but there are certain hypothetical cases which might not be covered by that provision. This wider definition will cover all cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 75, line 24, leave out the words "as needing care or protection."—[Mr. Stanley.]

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed. )

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 81, line 44, column 3, to leave out the words "and subsection (2) of that section."

This is purely a drafting Amendment, as this Subsection should have been omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)

I beg to move, in page 85, line 8, at the end, to insert the words: S. 5 … The section shall be omitted. We now come to the Amendments on the Schedule which applies the Bill to Scotland. The first of these, and everyone of the Amendments, is either purely drafting or making applicable to the Scottish Bill, because it is printed as a separate Act the Amendments which have just been put in on the Report stage. I do not propose, unless I am asked, to make any statement on these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 85, line 42, after the word "justices," insert the words "wherever occurring, and the words 'justices or.'"

In line 42, at the end, insert the words: and for the words 'petty sessional division' the words ' probation area ' shall be substituted.

In page 87, line 13, leave out the words "Paragraph (a)," and insert instead thereof the words "Paragraphs (a) and (d)."

In page 88, line 26, at the end, insert the words: In Sub-section (3), for the words 'house or home certified or approved by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1927,' there shall be substituted the words 'or house certified by the General Board of Control for Scotland under the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913 ' and for the words ' those Acts ' there shall be substituted the words 'that Act.

In line 38, column 2, at the beginning, insert the words: In Sub-section (2) for the word 'required' there shall be substituted the words 'under obligation.'

In page 90, line 4, leave out from the word "substituted," to the end of line 8, and insert instead thereof the words: the expression 'child' shall, as from such day as the Scottish Education Department may appoint, mean instead of a person under fourteen years of age, a person under fifteen years of age, and a child under obligation to attend school 6hall be deemed to attain the age of fourteen or fifteen on the date prescribed for terminating school attendance next succeeding the fourteenth or fifteenth anniversary of his birth, as the case may be.

In line 21, at the end, insert the words: S.67 … In Sub-section (1) for the words ' house or home certified or approved by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1927,' there shall be substituted the words ' or house certified by the General Board of Control for Scotland under the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913,' and for the words 'those Acts,' there shall be substituted the words 'that Act.'

In Sub-section (3) all the words after 'who is' shall be omitted and the following words shall be substituted ' under guardianship in pursuance of an order under the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913.'"

In line 23, at the end, insert the words: S. 69 …. The following words shall be added at the end of the section, ' and as if after Sub-section (2) the following sub-section were add: — (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to a contravention of Section four of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922, in like manner as they apply to an indecent assault, and any reference to the commission of such an assault or to being indecently assaulted shall be construed accordingly.'

In column 2, leave out lines 29 to 31, and insert instead thereof the words: For the section the following section shall be substituted: — Provision as to local authorities.

In page 91, leave out lines 40 to 48.

In page 95, leave out lines 5 to 17.

In line 36, after the word "nine," insert the words "twenty-eight."

In line 37, after the word "omitted," insert the words: in the paragraph relating to Section ninety-seven of the principal Act the words from ' and at the end or the sub-section ' to the words ' Borstal Institution' shall be omitted.

In page 97, line 39, column 3, after the word "eight," insert the word "and."

In line 40, column 3, leave out the words "one hundred and eleven," and insert instead thereof the word "and."

In line 43, column 3, leave out the words "and one hundred and seventeen," and insert instead thereof the words "section one hundred and eleven."

In page 98, line 7, column 3, leave out from the word "child," to the word "one," in line 10, and insert instead thereof the word "section."—[Mr. Skelton.]

Sir H. SAMUEL

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House may, perhaps, allow me three sentences in order that I may express the feelings uppermost in the minds of Members of this House, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary on the passage of this legislation through this House. By the thoroughness of his knowledge of every detail of this voluminous legislation, the carefulness of his conduct of each Clause at every stage, the courtesy and tact with which he has carried the Bill through the Committee and Report stages, he has made possible the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons. But that would not have been possible without the cordial co-operation also of Members in all quarters of the House, and, on behalf of the Government, I desire to express our acknowledgments of the help of the Opposition in assisting in the passage of this Bill. I may be allowed one personal word, as having been the Under-Secretary responsible for the original Act, to ex- press my pleasure at seeing it so improved and expanded under the auspices of my successor.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I would like to be permitted to say one or two words. We are entirely in accord with the tribute paid by the Home Secretary to the most excellent and efficient service of the Under-Secretary in this matter. I have tried to follow the course of this Bill through its Second Reading, Committee stage, and down to the present moment. I can say that the tribute paid by the Home Secretary to the Undersecretary is scarcely adequate, generous as it was. I could not allow this Bill to pass without saying one other word. On the Second Reading we offered to the Government our whole-hearted support, but we also said we hoped to do what we could to improve it from our point of view. We are now obliged to say that, while we rejoice that the Bill is presently to become law, we regret the action of the Government in not providing observation homes, and that there are still certain provisions with regard to the employment of young persons and school-children which remain. Nevertheless, I believe that this Bill, with all its faults, is a Bill which will leave a permanent impress upon the social life of our community, and especially on the lives of young people. I offer to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary our congratulations on the fruition of their efforts.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE

I would like to associate myself with what has been said about the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. I wish to say a word with regard to remand homes. In Essex, the one remand home we had has now been closed. I think it is essential that we should have in Essex some remand home where children can be sent. Girls from Southend are sent to places considered entirely unsuitable as the only place available is the Diocesan Refuge. I want to put this to the Home Secretary. These girls have been sent recently, and I have no doubt will continue to be sent, to Holloway Prison. The last thing we ought to expect is that girls under 16 years of age should be sent to Holloway Prison, instead of to a remand home. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take some steps and make some provision in the light of these facts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.