POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 18 July 1899)

§ * LORD NORTON
My Lords, I propose to amend Clause 1, which vests more largely in the guardians of a poor law union the control over children of parents not fit to have charge of them, by leaving out the words "vicious habits or mode of life" in the following sub-section: Where the guardians are of opinion that by reason of mental deficiency, or of vicious habits or mode of life, a parent of the child is unfit to have control of it. Under the Poor Law Act of 1889 the guardians undertake the care of children who have been deserted by their parents, and act in loco parentis of those practically orphan children. That is a distinct, clear, and defensible position, but under this Bill the guardians are to assume control of children, even till the age of twenty-one, whose parents are, in the opinion of the guardians, unfit by their mode of life to have the care of them. This is a very strong advance in the direction of the State relieving parents of their proper responsibility in regard to their children. The Poor Law Acts provide that where a parent is imprisoned in respect of an offence against his child the guardians may take charge 1126 of that child; but under this Act that is greatly extended, and, where a parent has been sent to prison for one act of cruelty to one of the children, the guardians, if they think fit, may undertake the maintenance of the whole family of children of that parent till they reach the age of twenty-one. If a vicious parent commits a crime against his child he can be punished by the law, and during his imprisonment the child would be sent to school, and the parent, after his punishment, could be compelled to enter into recognizances that he would treat his child properly in the future. That would meet the case much better than the provision in this Bill. The only answer which Lord Harris was able to give in Committee to my statement that the tendency of the Act would be to offer a premium to parents to get rid of their children was that Guardians would not be likely to incur more expense in this direction than was necessary. It is a poor defence of a Bill to say that it will not be acted upon, and that appears to be the only defence of the exaggerated provisions of this Bill. I am glad to see the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), who presided over the Standing Committee, in his place, and I would appeal to him whether he did not acknowledge that the words which I now propose to omit were too vague, and whether he did not suggest that the noble Earl in charge of this Bill should insert words that were more explicit. The word vicious which has been consequently added by the noble Lord, and agreed to to-night, does not meet my objection, and I do not think it meets the objection of the noble Earl opposite. It is moreover undesirable except in extreme necessity to allow guardians to retain children under their care up to the age of twenty-one. One of the great faults in our industrial school system is that children are kept many years longer than they ought to be at school.

* LORD HARRIS
This subject was discussed in the Standing Committee, and although it is quite true that one of the arguments I then used has been quoted by the noble Lord who has just spoken, namely, that in my opinion guardians would not be likely to extrava- 1127 gantly spend the ratepayers' money on taking under their care children of vicious parents for a longer period than was necessary. I used other arguments to which the noble Lord has not referred. If you are going to refuse to extend sympathy to poor law children already under the maintenance of the guardians, who, through no misfortune of their own, have to suffer from parents of vicious habits and modes of life, you will, in order to be consistent, have to undo a good deal of the legislation of past years, which I venture to think has been of a very humane and very wise character. For many years past the object of legislation in this direction has been to get hold of children of vicious parents at an early age, and to prevent them being led into similar habits. I think the returns of crime already show unmistakably that that legislation has had good effect. This is only another step in the same direction. The Bill only affects children who are already under the maintenance of the guardians, and there is nothing to prevent the guardians from recovering the cost of the maintenance of the children from the parents. There is no reason why the children should live in the workhouse without doing any work until they are twenty-one years of age, and there is nothing to prevent guardians from putting them out to honest labour. It must be remembered also that only with the consent of the child can the guardians keep him or her after the age of eighteen. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) contended that the words "habits or mode of life" were not sufficiently precise, and the Local Government Board think the insertion of the word "vicious," for which purpose an Amendment has already been agreed to, would make them sufficiently precise. This Bill is a step in advance of the existing Acts relating to this question, and is based on the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed in 1896 to consider the question of Poor Law Schools, and it distinctly recommended that guardians should have greater power than they have at present of dealing with the children of vicious and drunken parents. This is a wise and charitable Act, and will do something to improve the future of these poor children. On this ground I hope your Lordships will agree with the wording of the Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
So far as I am concerned, the insertion of the word "vicious" meets the objection which I entertained. I agree in the main with what has been said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I think this is a case in which, in the interests of the children, we may safely go as far as the Bill proposes. The safeguards are sufficient, inasmuch as there is power to appeal to a competent Court, which may annul the decision of the guardians. It is a very serious matter that children should be left under the control of parents whose mode of life is such that the children are likely to be brought up in a corrupt and vicious manner, and I think the advantages of the Bill will outweigh its disadvantages. I therefore assent to the Bill as it now stands.