POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 6 July 1899)

* LORD HARRIS
The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) raised a question the other day as to the wisdom of the expression "parent" in Clause 1. The noble Earl pointed out that though one parent might have misbehaved, the other parent might be well behaved, and he questioned the desirability of taking any right away front the latter parent. I am advised by the Local Government Board that the intention and the effect of the Bill certainly is to take away only the powers of the parent who is described in this sub-section. Your Lordships will observe that, under Section 1, the guardians may at any time resolve that, until the child reaches the age of 18 years, all rights and powers of the parent—that is, of course, the parent who lots misbehaved—in respect of the child shall, subject, as in the Act mentioned, vest in the guardians. If, however, there is any doubt on the point, the Local Government Board will be prepared in the Standing Committee to put in words to make the effect clear.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
One or two Amendments have been suggested to me, and I have informed the noble Lord in charge of the Bill of them, but I think they will be more conveniently dealt with in the Standing Committee. I will not, therefore, trouble the House with any observations at this stage.

LORD HARRIS
The Local Government Board are considering the Amendments submitted by the noble Earl, and will, if necessary, make suggestions in the Standing Committee.

* LORD HARRIS
The noble Earl also asked me the other day to consider whether it was advisable that the control of the guardians over young persons who had been put out to service should be in any way extended. The Poor Law Apprentices Act makes it the business of the Poor Law Guardians to take care that the young persons placed out by them are visited, up to the age of 16, not less than twice a year, in order to make certain that he or she is receiving proper food, and is not being ill-treated. The Local Government Board still think, in view of the recommendations of many Poor Law Unions, that it would be wise to extend those visits beyond the place of first service. It seems to them that, if it is desirable that young persons should be visited when they first go out to service, that desirability extends whether the boy or girl is in the place of first service or not. In may happen that the child has no parents at all, and no relatives to look after him or her, and it would surely be beneficial, and in the interests of the child, that somebody should take care that he or she is being well treated and well fed. Again, there is the risk of undesirable relatives tempting the child away from the place of first service, in order to deprive the guardians of the power of control. As at present advised, I think it would be wise to leave the Bill as it stands.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Does this clause relate only to apprenticed children?

* LORD HARRIS
And to children placed out in service.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I was under a misapprehension the other day, 6 because I conceived that it related to all children and not to apprenticed children only. With regard to the extension of the law under the Apprenticeship Act, I should be rather disposed, subject to further consideration, to agree with the noble Earl opposite.