§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)I beg to move, in page 11, line 32, after "welfare," to insert: "or proper religious upbringing."
There has been general concern during the passage of this Bill that appropriate regard should be paid to the religious welfare of the children, and that concern has been generally and satisfactorily met by the Government. We have already had evidence of that today. This Amendment is simply moved with the desire to make assurance doubly sure. By Subsection (2, a) regulations may provide for securing that where possible, the person with whom any child is to be boarded out is either of the same religious persuasion as the child, or gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion. On the other hand, however, nothing is clearly laid down as to what will happen, what the punishment will be, if that undertaking is not properly carried out.
To make assurance doubly sure we think it would be as well to have the words of the Amendment in the Bill, so that there could not possibly be any dispute in the courts as to whether proper religious upbringing was included in welfare. We do not want to be too particular, but in these matters of religion it is as well that we should try to make the law as rigid as possible. I am reminded of a negro in Alabama who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: "Sure, boss, I've seen it done." That was a reasonable answer, and so we should like to see this matter laid down clearly in the Bill. It would disadvantage nobody, and might save unpleasant differences of opinion or litigation in future.
§ Commander GalbraithI beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot see that there is any objection to these words, and I should be glad to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about them.
§ Mr. YoungerThe hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) used words to show that he recognises that a good deal has been done in this Bill, since it was first introduced in another place, to give all the assurances which religious communities might wish. He said he wished to make assurance doubly sure, and I hope I can give him an assurance which will satisfy him, although I also hope he will not ask us to put 1859 any further qualification into the Bill itself. Provision has already been made in Clause 14 for regulations requiring a local authority to board children out with persons of the same religion if possible or at any rate with those who give an undertaking that the child will be brought up suitably in the religion to which he belongs. This is a provision which exists in the 1933 Act and which according to my information, has worked quite satisfactorily. We have heard no complaints or suggestions that any further addition to that was necessary.
Earlier, in another place and in Standing Committee, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend that it will be suggested to local authorities in a circular sent, they should, where practicable, consult with the appropriate authority about the child's religious persuasion before boarding him out with somebody who is not of the same religious persuasion. It is further proposed to urge them to secure the help and co-operation of the churches and religious communities in finding suitable foster homes. I think that that goes as far as we can reasonably go in giving the necessary assurance. We must not too greatly restrict the places where a local authority might place a child because facilities are sometimes very limited. In this matter we are not dealing solely with the great churches, but also with religious sects and communities which are only sparsely represented in this country. If we placed undue insistence on the words of the Amendment, it might sometimes put local authorities into considerable difficulty in placing a child.
§ Mr. HollisI fully appreciate the spirit of the Government's intentions in this matter, but I would point out that the Amendment is not concerned with the question of placing a child but with withdrawal, should it turn out that the home is not satisfactory. The Clause provides that there shall be regulations as to where children are to be boarded out. I should be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman assured me that the word "securing" in paragraph (d) is sufficiently strong to enable local authorities to withdraw children where their home had appeared to be satisfactory from the religious point of view but subsequently turned out to be unsatisfactory.
§ Mr. YoungerI think I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on that point. The provisions of paragraph (c) show that the question of religious upbringing is regarded as a matter of importance in the upbringing of the child. I think the word "securing" in paragraph (d) would give the necessary powers, and that the general word "welfare" would be taken to include the spiritual and moral welfare of the child, as well as merely its physical welfare. There is no doubt that power would exist under the proposed regulations.
§ Mr. HollisI should like to thank the Under-Secretary for what he has said, and to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.