HL Deb 30 March 1911 vol 7 cc780-807

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Construction of Principal Act and Acts referring thereto

2.The principal Act and other Acts referring thereto shall be construed—

  1. (a)as if in subsection two of section three of the principal Act for the words "under the age of eleven" there were substituted the words "or other person being a boy under the age of seventeen years or a girl under the age of eighteen"; and
  2. (b)as if in section four and in section fourteen and in section sixteen the words "Board of Education" were substituted for the words "Secretary of State"; and
  3. (c) as if at the end of subsection three of section five there were added the words "and if under the age of sixteen, to be sent to a certified reformatory school."

LORD MONK BRETTON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, at the beginning of paragraph (a), the words "in their application in a county borough or in a borough with a population of over ten thousand, or in an urban district with a population of over twenty thousand, or in the administrative county of London." The noble Lord said: This point is covered by the larger Amendment to be moved by Lord Faber, and as I agree with that Amendment I do not propose to move the one standing in my name.

LORD FABER

My Lords, my first Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a). Since the noble Earl introduced this Bill a fortnight ago public interest in it has been a good deal roused, and some of us have taken what care we could to get the opinion of experts on the matter. We have also approached some of the gentlemen who sat on the Employment of Children Act Committee in 1910, and others having much knowledge on the subject have been taken into counsel. I quite appreciate the noble Earl's motives in bringing forward this Bill and do not by any means differ from him lightly. Still I think his Bill goes a good deal too far; hence my Amendments to-day.

The object of Lord Shaftesbury's Bill appears to be (1) to absolutely prevent street trading by any boy under seventeen or girl under eighteen, and to remove from local authorities their power, under Section 2 of the Act of 1903, to make by-laws for the regulation of street trading by persons under sixteen; and (2) to couple the administration of the Employment of Children Act with the duties of the local authority as local education authority. Now what do the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper do? First, my proposed new clause confines this Bill to thickly populated boroughs and urban districts; secondly, it says that the local authorities must, not may, issue licences to street traders in their districts and regulate the conditions of such licences; thirdly, it says that street trading by girls under eighteen can be absolutely prohibited—with this exception, that neither boys nor girls over the age of eleven can be prevented from trading in the streets in company with and under the direction of their parents; and, fourthly, it leaves the power already existing under the 1903 Act for boys and girls over the age of eleven to trade in the streets as heretofore.

I have confined the Bill to thickly populated urban districts and to large boroughs because I felt that as regards country districts street trading was not a vital matter, and that there was not much to be said against street trading in country districts. Children there chiefly deliver newspapers and milk, and likely enough they are employed in taking farm produce to markets, which might be called street trading but with which I am sure your Lordships do not wish to interfere. I have made it imperative upon authorities to issue licences because, while some authorities, notably in London, have issued licences and look after street trading, there are other authorities that have not issued licences and do nothing at all in the matter. The power which is given in my proposed new clause to local authorities, if they think fit, to absolutely prohibit street trading by girls under eighteen, I do not suppose will often have to be put into force, but I have thought it well that there should be this power as a protection to these girls; but, as I have said, I make the exception that children who trade in company with their parents are to be allowed to continue to trade. Girls are very often useful, I am given to understand, in helping their parents at stalls in the streets, with costermongers' barrows and so forth, and in my opinion they are quite safe under the immediate protection of their parents.

My most important provision, of course, is the one which leaves the power already existing under the 1903 Act for children over the age of eleven to trade in the streets. On looking at the statistics I find this rather curious fact, that in London there are 10,400 street traders between the ages of eleven and fourteen and 3,300 between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The school age generally terminates at about fourteen. Therefore the statistics show that school children trade, and that when they leave school at the age of fourteen they cease to trade in the streets to anything like the same extent and get regular employment. Therefore this street trading is generally done by school children who cannot get regular work while attending school. What harm is there in children after school hours selling papers or fruit or matches in the streets? If they were not doing that, what would they be doing? Would they be doing anything better? I doubt it. And it must further be remembered that the money which they thus earn is supremely, nay tragically, necessary. As I informed your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, the balance-sheet of many poor families in London shows that never is the housewife able to spend as much as 3d a day on the food of each individual member of the family, and therefore if the child earns a few pence in this way the money is of extreme importance. The hours are not long, for most of the newspaper sales take place between four and seven in the evening, while the extra pence that are brought home are a welcome addition to the small sum available for the purchase of food. There are no fewer than 40,000 boys and 3,945 girls engaged in this street trading, so that the boys are ten times as many as the girls. I have tried to make the reasons for my proposed new clause as clear as possible, and having said so much I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 11 to 15, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Faber)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has the interests of street traders at heart, and endeavoured to obtain as much accurate information upon it as possible; but your Lordships will also have gathered that the Amendment he is now proposing really strikes at the root of the Bill to which you gave a Second Reading a fortnight ago. It will be apparent to your Lordships that the thing hinges entirely upon whether we are to make street trading by young children a Statutory prohibition or leave to local authorities the power of regulating it by by-laws. I endeavoured on the Second Reading of the Bill to make it quite clear that local authorities have, in some instances, exercised their powers rigidly and exceedingly well, but, in the vast majority of cases, whilst by-laws have been drawn up according to the Statute they have not been enforced as well as they might have been, and in some cases no by-laws whatever have been drawn up. I think it is conclusive that local option—and by local option I mean the power of local authorities to draw up by-laws—has proved a failure in this matter, and upon that point hinges the whole of my case.

I do not know that I need go back to the Second Reading debate, and explain further the details. If your Lordships will read the evidence, you will see from the Report of the Departmental Committee that they were agreed that the law as it stands at present, allowing local authorities to make by-laws, had failed. It may interest your Lordships upon that point to hear the statements made at a great conference held the other day upon street trading by children. Sir John Gorst, who, as you all know, is an authority upon this question, said that the present permissive law had not produced its effect, and the time had now come for compulsion. The President of the National Union of Teachers deplored the fact that so many children were engaged in street trading, and said he would welcome restriction or compulsion. I do not think I need say more upon that point, because it is obvious that something must be done either to prohibit street trading or to make the by-laws more rigid. In my opinion prohibition of street trading should become the law of the land.

I do not think I can avoid mentioning the further Amendments standing in the noble Lord's name, because they all hang together. Your Lordships will notice that the noble Lord has thought it wise to confine his Amendments to municipal boroughs with a population of over 10,000 and urban districts with a population of over 20,000. Let me point out to you the effect of that. It means, according to the Census of 1901, that 108 boroughs out of 248, and 745 urban districts out of 806, would be excluded; and also all the villages, which number many thousands. Taking all the boroughs, county boroughs, and municipal councils in England and Wales, there is a total of 1,122, and of those only 269 will be included, so that over seventy-six per cent. of the towns of England and Wales will be deprived of the powers they already have under the principal Act of 1903. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises that the effect of his Amendment will be that in those towns which are excluded by his Amendment there will be no by-laws or statutory prohibition whatsoever controlling the street trading question.

Your Lordships will admit that that is not amending the law. I think it is bordering on ruining what exists at present. If the noble Lord really wishes to amend the law, I think he had better try and see if he cannot include some of these very important towns. There are heaps of small towns in England with under 20,000 population where street trading by-laws are absolutely necessary, and where there would be no restrictions whatsoever if this Amendment were carried. I admit that under the Amendment we have certain advantages over what now exists. There is power given to prohibit girls trading in the streets at least up to the age of eighteen. The noble Lord has there raised the age from sixteen to seventeen to eighteen years, which is a distinct advance; but if street trading is an evil, and I believe the consensus of evidence goes to prove that, surely it would be wiser inasmuch as the present law has failed, to amend the law by prohibiting street trading altogether, and so make quite certain that children shall not be led into temptation in the way they are at present. Your Lordships will notice that I propose to mitigate the hardship to a certain extent by allowing those children over the age of eleven who at present have licences under the local authority to continue to trade, but, no new child when he comes to the age of eleven would be allowed to street trade. That, I think, will mitigate the hardship to a large extent. It allows a longer time for the transition stage; and, further, it does not deprive any particular child of anything which has already been allowed. I hope your Lordships will take that into consideration, and will support me in asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, which strikes at the root principle of the Bill.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

My Lords, it does seem to me that this is a question which ought to be considered with a great deal of care. It is very fine for us to indulge in cheap philanthropy in this House, and decide, in accordance with an ideal condition of things, that boys who have not attained a certain age should not trade in the streets. Your Lordships will have to consider this fact, that a large number of these boys are from very respectable homes, and that the money which they earn is extremely necessary to the families themselves. That is why it does seem. to me that this is eminently a question on which we should proceed on the lines, not of rigid rules of prohibition, but of elasticity, and that can only be carried out by a system of local option, the localities themselves having a voice in the matter. Lord Shaftesbury considers that it will mitigate matters that boys who now have licences will under the Bill be allowed to continue trading. It does not seem to me that that would have the effect of making things seem fairer or more just as regards the poorer members of the population. Here is one boy who has been able to trade and bring money home; he is allowed to continue. The boy of another family, living perhaps next door and equally poor, is not allowed to trade. Under those circumstances we ought to act with very great care in this matter. After all, the best people to decide these questions are the people who reside in the locality, and I am sure that is a much safer and sounder system than to impose a rigid law of prohibition applicable to the whole country. As regards trading in the country, in many cases a small stationer employs boys to distribute his papers as part of his business, and it seems to me rather absurd to say that boys in that case receive any harm from going about on bicycles to deliver newspapers. I would also remind your Lordships that even hi large suburban districts it would be really impossible for people in many cases to get their newspapers delivered unless you had sonic system of that kind. In these circumstances if this Amendment goes to a Division I must support the noble Lord who has introduced it.

LORD MONK BRETTON

My Lords, I was very surprised to hear the interpretation which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill put on the Amendment which has been introduced by my noble friend behind me. I understand that the effect of that Amendment is, first, to exclude rural areas from the provisions of the Bill, and, second, to oblige local authorities to make by-laws in urban districts. I should have thought that the fact that that was obligatory would effect the purpose which the promoters of the Bill are desirous of achieving.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but if he will look through the list of Amendments he will see that by them Section 2 of the principal Act will be repealed, and if that section is repealed it means that in all urban districts of under 20,000 inhabitants and in all rural districts of under 10,000 inhabitants no by-laws or any Statutory prohibition whatever can be drawn up.

LORD MONK BRETTON

I do not wish to quarrel with the noble Earl as to his interpretation of the Act of 1903. But in the enormous tome of evidence produced by the Select Committee, out of, I think, ninety-eight witnesses, there was only one—the Medical Officer of Essex—who gave any evidence with regard to rural districts. I think he referred to one rural district, the district of Epping, which I should not have thought was the most typical rural district in England. He admitted that there was very little street trading, and very little of this employment, except on farms, and it is on that gentleman's evidence that this law is to be applied to the whole kingdom. It seems to be the most flimsy evidence on which to hang such a very large Bill, and it is directly contrary to the evidence of Sir Edward Troup, who told the Committee that this was essentially a town problem. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Earl will not reject at any rate that part of my noble friend's Amendment which refers to rural districts.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, says that this Amendment involves the principle of the Bill. I shall be prepared to join issue with him on that point. It is very easy to make these regulations for people whom personally we know very little about, but you have no right to take that action unless you have an overwhelming case for it. In this case you had a Committee appointed and you had the whole matter discussed, and it is now being discussed by people who are well fed and well clothed and well housed, and who are prepared to say, as the noble Earl said, that what is proposed represents an ideal condition of things. They would like to see children doing this and that, and brought up in this way and that way, and not indulging in unpleasant occupations or occupations which have some danger, and which I admit have some definite disabilities which may have to be dealt with. It is all very well to say that, but I cannot help putting to myself the question, What right have I to prohibit some child from earning money in this way which it desires to earn, if it is hungry, and if it wants to fill its stomach? There may be evils in street trading, but there are few evils for a growing child worse than that of being hungry; and if it wants additional food and is able to earn it in this way without serious damage, and the parent is willing that it should earn money in this way, I feel I am not justified, because I think there should be a more ideal state of things, in preventing that child from earning this money. Personally I am not prepared, and I never should in any similar case be prepared, to support a remedy which would not absolutely cure the evil you have to meet. I think this Bill goes a great deal too far, and though I sympathise with the desire that this thing should not be, we are not justified in bringing about the result in this way unless we are going to put something in its place and make up to these children the money we are taking away or depriving them of earning. If a child which would otherwise have to go hungry can earn its sustenance by street trading without suffering serious injury, I do not consider myself justified in preventing its doing so because I would like to see a more ideal state of things existing. For that reason I am bound to support this Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I expect that a speech like that was made against every one of the reforms made by the noble Earl's (Lord Shaftesbury's) predecessor. There are cases when it is necessary to step in and protect the children. I have listened to those arguments before, and they have been discounted, and we all know now that the factory legislation was right in the protection of children. I fully acknowledge that the noble Lord who introduced the Amendment has at heart the interests of the boys and girls as much as I have, but I would like to say one or two things. The first is that this is a serious question concerning 37,000 children at least, and it is a growing evil. Therefore we cannot lightly pass it by. The noble Lord is wrong in thinking that children in London stay at school up to the age of fourteen; they do not stay as a rule till anything like the age of fourteen. The noble Lord said there was no harm to the school children in carrying on this trading after their school work was over. That is against the opinion of all the experts who have to deal with the school life of London. If you read the interesting evidence, which I have read in great detail to-day, given on the character and wellbeing of the children of school age, your Lordships will see that a nervous breakdown is involved if these poor little children are sent to earn their living early in the morning before school; and I consider that great harm is being done by their being allowed to work after school time.

But there is a more serious question about the boys. At six o'clock yesterday I was addressing a very different audience. I was addressing 200 boys in Borstal Prison. And in this connection I would remind your Lordships that the evidence, given in the Departmental Committee's Report, of all those who have to deal with the criminal classes is that the criminal class is fed by juvenile street trading. The boy gets into habits which lead him very often into prison, We must consider that. Then there is that terrible queue on the Embankment of unemployed and unemployable. The evidence on this question was considered by a most experienced Committee appointed by the present Government, and they said that this unemployable class, again, is fed from these boys who are allowed to drift about the street and go without a trade. We all know that the question is really to a large extent one of the newspaper trade. Of these thousands of children, I should think that quite nine out of ten are employed in the newspaper trade. Cannot newspapers be sold in the streets in a better way than this? Some of us know the conditions in foreign towns, where there are numerous little stalls where newspapers can be purchased. Something of that sort might be done here, but not at the cost of all this harm to the life of our young people. Some important newspapers, the Westminster Gazette for instance, make a point of employing older people as street sellers because of the mischief done by the employment of boys. Surely that is a matter that might be considered. When, however, you come to the question of street trading by girls, the Report seems to say in the strongest language that such street trading is absolutely indefensible. When you have got to that stage, is it enough to merely support an Amendment in this form? It seems to me that this is a national question of the most serious kind, and must be dealt with by the nation as a whole. I know the poorer homes probably better than any of your. Lordships. I have spent years of my life in visiting them. I know the difficulties and do not deny the hardships that will be occasioned in some cases, but I put what is for the good of the country against sentiments such as were expressed by the noble Earl who last spoke.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships are in conflict with the right rev. Prelate as to the necessity of doing something to remedy the evil which has been testified to by many noble Lords and by the right rev. Prelate himself, who we all acknowledge is a conspicuous authority on a matter of this kind. But we have not only their testimony. We have the authority of the Report of the Departmental Committee to which reference has been made. I have tried to read this Report with some care, and though it undoubtedly goes to show that there is a great evil, yet I do not think it bears out all the statements which have been made on behalf of this Bill. Let me take one example to show what I mean. The right rev. Prelate and others have said that street trading leads children into bad courses, and that after they have been engaged in street trading for a certain period they are liable to avoid anything like proper industry and to drift into the category of the loafer and finally into the category of the unemployable. But the figures in the Majority Report do not entirely bear out that view. No doubt they bear it out in a measure, and that is why we are all in favour of something being done; but they do not bear out the view in anything like the extreme form in which it has been stated.

It seems that, though there is a very large number of young boy traders, when they get to the age of fourteen the number enormously diminishes. I have the figures for London. There are 10,000 boy traders between the ages of eleven and fourteen, and there are 3,000 between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, so it is perfectly clear that rather more than two-thirds leave street trading and adopt some other occupation when they grow older, which is directly in conflict with the contention that all these children, or the majority of them, go to the bad. And what is true of London is true of the whole country. I quote again from the Majority Report. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting from the Report, but this is the authority on which the Bill is proposed to you. In England and Wales, outside London, there are 15,000 boys licensed below the age of fourteen, and only 6,000 between fourteen and sixteen, so that the large proportion of those boys do not go on in the disastrous street trading of which so much complaint has justly been made. I say that by way of showing that we must not exaggerate when we are dealing with these cases.

I now come to the question of rural and urban districts. What does the Report say as between the case of large towns and the case of small towns in country districts? The Minority Report says— There is no evidence before us showing the, extent to which street trading is carried on in the smaller towns and rural districts, the forms which it takes, or its results. I am quoting now from the Minority Report, but I know nothing in the Majority Report which is in conflict with that statement of the minority. If you look a little lower down in the Minority Report you find this statement— Nor do we think a case has been made out for extending the prohibition to the whole of the country. As already pointed out, the conditions outside the large towns have not been investigated by the Committee. So your Lordships will observe that there is no evidence before you in this Report to lead you to draw any conclusions whatever on that part of the subject. In view of the wide definition which is given to street trading, absolute prohibition would interfere with branches of work which are probably quite harmless. I think I have said enough on that score to show why it is necessary to frame the remedy much more mildly than in his enthusiasm my noble friend has framed it.

Let me point out also that there was a very important witness—Sir Edward Troup—who said he thought that compulsion would be exceedingly difficult to enforce, and the Minority Report definitely states that in their opinion compulsion would be a mistake. But my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury asks, Are we to do nothing? I agree that something must be done. I do not say that the Amendment is necessarily and absolutely the best compromise at which we, can arrive, but remember it is proposed to do something and something very substantial. In the first place, my noble friend proposes to make by-laws compulsory in every large urban district.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

What by-laws?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will explain to the right rev. Prelate if he will allow me. He will find in the principal Act, in Section 2, a provision under which certain powers to make certain by-laws are given to local authorities. It appears that a great number of local authorities have not used this power. The noble Lord who brings forward this Amendment proposes that they should all be made to use these powers. I turn again to the Report to show that it is a good power——

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

May I interrupt? I want to explain to the noble Marquess with regard to the section he has just referred to—Section 2 of the principal Act, which empowers the local authorities to make by-laws. It is proposed to repeal that section. You will see to the Schedule of the Bill an Amendment which proposes to repeal that section. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment does not seem to quarrel with the repealing of that section, because there is no Amendment down in his name to amend that provision in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is quite possible that the repeal of the section goes too far. That remains for my noble friend who has drawn the Bill; but, as a matter of fact, in Lord Faber's Amendment the by-law provision is re-enacted, with a few additions, in almost exactly the same terms as it stands in Section 2 of the principal Act, but for clearness sake I referred to it as Section 2 of the Act. The point I want to make is this, that this power of making by-laws is effective. It has been used in three great cities, in Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and in all three places I understand it has been effective. I take the Report again, because, after all, this is a matter of evidence; it is not a matter of theory. The Report says— Taking, then, the evidence from Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, we find very strong testimony——

LORD SHEFFIELD

Is the noble Marquess quoting from the Majority Report Or from the Minority Report?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is the Minority Report. If the noble Lord wishes to follow it, it is on page 18.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I have not got the Report. I only wanted to know which of the Reports you were quoting from.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is what the Report says— Taking, then, the evidence from Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, we find very strong testimony to the beneficial effects which have been produced by the system of regulation which has been in force now for a number of years; to the marked improvement in the conduct of the children, their attendance at school, and (generally) of their clothing; and we cannot, therefore, in the first place, assent to the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the Committee, that the system of regulation has proved a failure. Now that is very important. Here is the testimony of these members of the Com- mittee, including the Home Office representative—the representative of His Majesty's Government upon the Committee—and they say that the system of regulation has not been a failure but a success. It may be necessary and proper to strengthen the power of regulation, and, for example, to see that the regulations are approved by some central authority like the Home Office itself, but there is no doubt that the system of regulation, which my noble friend proposes to make universal and no longer optional on the local authority, has been shown to be a success. That strong testimony to the value of the scheme put forward by my noble friend is not, if I may say so, quite consistent with Lord Shaftesbury's argument that this Amendment would do nothing to meet the difficulty and the evil of street trading.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I did not wish to give that impression. 1 think it will go a long way, but I do not think it goes quite far enough.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not desire for a moment to convict my noble friend of any kind of inconsistency, but I wanted to show your Lordships that this was not an illusory remedy, but a real remedy. For those reasons it seems to me that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Faber is a good and sound Amendment, and that the original proposal of the Bill goes too far. To enact that no boy under the age of seventeen is to engage in street trading is a very drastic thing indeed to do. It is impossible. I have received a communication from a very great authority in respect to the poor of London, and he tells me that it would inflict great suffering if we passed the Bill in the form in which it is drawn. In those circumstances Lord Faber has done his best to put forward an alternative proposal far less drastic than the one submitted by the noble Earl. If it requires a little modification, that can be done now or at a future stage; but I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will be well advised to accept the Amendment.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that we are discussing this Amendment on the basis of a conversation which took place on the other side of the House, and which I have no doubt was exceedingly interesting, between the noble Earl who introduced the Bill and the noble Lord below the Gangway, but on this side it was exceedingly difficult to hear what was really said, as they seemed to address their remarks to one another rather than to the House. The noble Marquess opposite has made a speech much of which would have been excellently in place on the Second Reading, and which was very largely against the principle of the Bill rather than in favour of its amendment

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the noble Earl kindly point out a single phrase which I used which was not perfectly material to the Amendment I was discussing?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I refer to the way in which the noble Marquess proceeded to point out that this was unnecessary and that was unnecessary in the present Bill and that it would be quite sufficient if something a great deal less was done. If lie had said that on the Second Reading I think he would probably have found himself more in accord with those who did on that occasion express opposition to the measure itself. Your Lordships' House is very fortunate in possessing a number of experts who take a great deal of interest in this subject, and who know a great deal about it. The Amendment is not very easy to follow, but, as I understand it, what happens exactly under the Amendment is this, that while this particular paragraph is left out, Section 2 of the principal Act is also omitted, but, as the noble Marquess pointed out, it is re-enacted in the same permissive form in the clause which ho will move at a later stage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is Lord Faber who will move it.

LORD FABER

It is not permissive. On the contrary, it makes it obligatory.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Section 2 of the principal Act is re-enacted in a permissive form in the second part of the clause which the noble Lord proposes to move at a later stage.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

Only so far as it concerns municipal boroughs and urban districts with a population of——

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am coming to the point if noble Lords will allow me. I say that the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment says "may"; the first part re-enacts Section 2 of the principal Act, and the first part, which is the new part, is compulsory. That, I think, there is no doubt about. I apologise to noble Lords for taking the second part of the clause first. It seemed to me to be more convenient, but I was mistaken.

The first part of the matter is that this business of making by-laws is compulsory. I hope now we have really got to the point.. But I think we ought to know from the noble Lord who proposes the Amendment whether he has had any communication with municipal boroughs or councils of urban districts as to whether they are prepared to undertake this duty, and whether they approve of being given these compulsory powers. The House is so well able to judge of the merits of this proposal without any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government, that we shall take no official part in the Division which may take place. For my own part, I feel somewhat strongly that what has been said in opposition to the proposals in the Bill is very similar to what has been said against most reforms which have been introduced on subjects of this kind in the past, and I shall be inclined to vote for the original Bill in the shape in which it was introduced.

LORD ASHBOURNE

My Lords, I took no part in the Second Reading of this Bill because I had not fully considered the matter, but since then I have received many communications which have compelled me to take the subject into consideration. I listened, of course with respect, to everything that was said by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, and by the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, but I am bound to use my own judgment and see what the Bill proposes. At present the law prohibits children under eleven years of age from engaging in street trading, and it is a tremendous jump to raise the age to seventeen. It is far beyond the necessities of the case. I venture to say that wherever this proposal has become known it has shocked public opinion. It has astounded the people. When we look round and see the appeals for charity which are made every day, and when we are told of the great want that exists in many of the poor homes in London and consider the possibility of children I being robbed of the chance of earning money we must realise that the Bill would imperil many poor homes. The right rev. Prelate speaks necessarily with the greatest knowledge of the diocese over which he presides; he did not purport to speak of places outside; but this is a Bill that proposes to deal, not with London only, but with every city and town and village in the kingdom, and to announce everywhere that no boy under seventeen is to be permitted to engage in street trading. That strikes me as something that shocks all common sense. I do not say that the Bill, amended as it will be, I hope, by the addition of the Amendments proposed, will then be perfect. I would, however, be very sorry if the Bill were lost, and I would be quite prepared to consider with attention any Amendments moved with the object of making it more in harmony with what I regard as common sense.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, in discussing this kind of question, there is great danger of exaggeration on either side. We are liable, in the desire to be brief, to become categorical, and if we are categorical, then we are apt to exaggerate. In this particular matter there is danger in that direction, both on the part of those who are supporting the Bill and on the part of those who are in favour of Lord Faber's Amendment embodying what seems to me to be altogether a different proposal. I confess I have been amazed by one or two of the speeches we have heard to-night, and above all by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That speech, as I think has been already said, reminds one of the opposition which was offered to the early Factory Bills or the Chimney Boys' Bill, and to everything of that kind, when we were told that it was very important, no doubt, that things should be regulated, but that it was much more important that people should be able to live, and that if you did this, that, or the other you prevented them from living by taking away practically their means of living.

EARL RUSSELL

I hope the most rev. Primate does not overlook the fact that I said, "unless an overwhelming case was made out."

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I agree that Lord Shaftesbury has gone a little too far in the Bill as it stands as regards the restrictions he suggests upon the employment of boys. It does seem to me that he would be acting wisely in the interests of the Bill and in the interests of the boys themselves if he were to modify somewhat the proposals which the Bill now contains; but it is going a great deal beyond that to say, that what we ought to do to-night is to accept Lord Faber's Amendment. If I understand the Amendment rightly, it would impose the duty of making by-laws on local authorities, but what these by-laws are to be, except that they may not go too far, is left entirely to the local authority. Unless I misunderstand the purport of the Amendment, a local authority which was backward in this matter and did not take a proper interest in it at all might pass by-laws which would be fatal to any such amelioration as this Bill is desiring to produce. If I am misinterpreting or exaggerating the purport of the Amendment I desire to be corrected, but that is how it presents itself to me.

LORD FABER

If your:Lordships will allow me to say so, that is what I think. The original Act does this. It is a very difficult. Act to understand, but I have got back practically to the 1903 Act.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

The proposed new clause says that these authorities must make by-laws, but it does not matter what by-laws they make, except that they may not go too far. The by-laws may be as open as ever you like; and when the noble Marquess rested his quasi adoption of that principle upon the Minority Report, which, of course, differs broadly and widely from the Report of the majority, I think he had overlooked the fact that the Minority Report most distinctly said that street trading in cities and large towns should be prohibited for girls up to eighteen, subject to such and such reservations. If we adopt this new clause it would be perfectly open to a local authority to do nothing, and thus directly to contravene the recommendation in the Minority Report. There are other details upon which it would be easy to dwell, but it is a little difficult in the form that our argument has taken to know exactly with what particular proposal the House is dealing at the moment. I venture to believe that we should act far more wisely, if, as I hope is the case, we are not going to wreck this Bill, if we were to pass these clauses now as they stand and then amend them on Report. The Bill as it stands affords a better basis for considering future Amendments than it would afford were the suggested clause of the noble Lord introduced into it. If we introduce this Amendment, we change the whole trend, purport, and character of the Bill, and I hope it will not be accepted. There are Amendments which, in my opinion, it would be wise to make, but they could be better adapted on the Report Stage to the text of the Bill as submitted by Lord Shaftesbury.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I confess I very much sympathise with those who see the dangers of legislation which would prevent the children of poor people earning money necessary for their welfare and that of their families. I think Lord Shaftesbury has gone somewhat too far in the provisions of this Bill. On the other hand, it seems that the most rev. Primate has put the case against Lord Faber's Amendment with very great force. It would never do to leave to local authorities absolute discretion as to what by-laws they should make, for they might be utterly repugnant to anybody who desires to see the proper regulation of juvenile street trading. I think your Lordships have some cause of complaint lit regard to the speech of the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works. Surely this is a matter on which, as officially representing the Home Office, he ought to have been able to give some guidance to your Lordships. It was a matter which was inquired into under the auspices of the Home Office by a Committee on which representatives of the Home Office sat, and I confess that my own vote would be very much influenced if I knew precisely what the Home Office believe to be the best way of dealing with this question. I would suggest to Lord Shaftesbury that if he could tell us that he would be prepared to consider other Amendments to the Bill—such as, for instance, fixing the age for prohibiting boys from street trading at less than seventeen—it might facilitate the passage of the Bill through this House.

LORD SHEFFIELD

My Lords, after the speeches of the most rev. Primate and the noble Viscount opposite I will trouble your Lordships with very few remarks, because I am in substantial agreement with both of those speeches. But I wish to refer to one or two observations in the speech made by the noble Marquess. I do not think that the noble Marquess proved the efficacy of permissive by-laws by quoting the example of three extremely active and energetic towns such as Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham. We all know that permissive by-laws will operate in some places, and operate very well, but the objection is that they operate just in proportion to the public spirit and energy of the town. What we want is to have some legislation which will secure that the proper elements of civilisation shall be secured to these children no matter where they live. I wish further to point out an objection to the proposal to exclude all the country except urban and other districts with a certain population. I agree that small towns, as for instance Devizes or Abingdon, are not places in which the conditions of life stimulate urban trading, but when you look to the great northern areas in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and places like that, the mere fact that a district has under 20,000 persons does not at all exclude it from the characteristics of a large urban district. I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, and that we shall be able to come to some reasonable amendment of the Bill itself, but on better lines. I entirely agree as to the evils which have to be guarded against, but I think seventeen is far too high an age to fix. I cannot help thinking that we should adequately protect the child if the limit in regard to boys was put up to, say, fifteen. I agree that the case of girls rests upon very different considerations. We know that with girls from fifteen to seventeen is the most dangerous age, and it is an age in which, from the social and moral point of view, we should do our utmost to keep them off the streets, especially after dark. But that rests upon another set of considerations, and I think these ought to be carefully considered, either later in Committee or on Report.

I cannot help thinking, as there is plenty of time, and as the debate is gradually drawing the whole House to a common conclusion, that if the debate were adjourned it would give time to Lord Shaftesbury to consider what Amendments he could accept, and then perhaps the Bill might become an agreed Bill. It has been clearly indicated in the Minority Report that you ought not to leave to local authorities the making of such by-laws without some supervision. They should be approved by some Government Department, not merely to weaken them, but, if necessary, to strengthen them. I hope we are going to treat this as a matter of Statutory regulation, subject to reasonable modifications and indulgence; and if we are going to leave it in the region of by-laws I hope we shall not limit the power to these urban districts. I think it might very well also be given to the county councils to apply to any particular district in their area. The county councils in such places as Lancashire or the West Riding of Yorkshire would use their judgment and consider whether there were areas within their district where this danger existed and which ought to have these regulations. There ought to be the power of putting the law in force in every part of the country where the occasion arises. I think if we could come to some agreement like that, and make a material reduction in the age as to boys—I leave the question of girls open, because I feel that that depends upon other arguments—and, if possible, keep the Bill in its present framework—namely, Statutory recognition of the fact that this street trading shall be restricted within certain limits—we shall have a satisfactory Bill, and one to which we could all agree.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I agree so much with the last speaker and so greatly desire an agreement by consent that I should hardly have risen were it not that there is one point which I particularly commend to the attention of the House, and not least to the attention of the noble Lord who has just sat down. You take the age of seventeen and say, as Lord Ashbourne said, "What a tremendous jump from eleven to seventeen." So it appears; but you really want to guard against a boy coming out of school drifting into these most objectionable and finally destructive employments, against which the whole of the evidence is so damning. Therefore, my point would be that we must be careful to give the lad time to get, perhaps by the help of societies who wish to assist him, some more useful and steady employment.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I expressly suggested the age of fifteen, to secure him one year in which to get decent employment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

I noticed that, and was very glad to observe it.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and I think noble Lords have practically made up their minds that to a certain extent the Bill that I propose goes a little too far; yet everybody is agreed, which, after all, is something to have gained, that something should be done. I always considered that the Amendments that were put down by Lord Faber were a step in advance upon the present existing law, although in some details they were defective. I also notice that some noble Lords seem to be of the opinion that the local authority should be left a say in the matter. If that is really the wish of this House, I am prepared, as the author of the Bill, to accept it. But I am going to appeal to Lord Faber to withdraw his Amendment which appears on the last sheet of Amendments. It is to the Schedule and proposes to omit from the column headed, "Extent of Repeal," the words: "In subsection two of section three, the words 'under the age of eleven.'" Let me explain what the effect of that will be. It will be that the original Act of 1903, Section 3, subsection (2), will read, "A child shall not be occupied in street trading." That means that you will get statutory prohibition up to the age of fourteen, for a boy, under the law, is a child until he is fourteen years of age.

LORD FABER

I am very glad to acquiesce in the request made by Lord Shaftesbury. I shall not move that Amendment, the effect of which, as he says, would be that the age up to which a boy could not trade would be fourteen instead of eleven.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Noble Lords cannot discuss the Schedule at this moment. We must dispose of this Amendment first. The Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I move to leave out paragraph (b). It was not my intention to take the matter entirely out of the hands of the Home Office and to make it the prerogative of the Board of Education.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 16 to 18, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment providing that "street trading" does not include the sale of the said articles where such sale is only incidental to the delivery of goods on behalf of a tradesman by whom the child or young person is regularly employed," and does not include "the sale of agricultural produce in recognised markets."

The noble Marquess said: I do not know what view my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury will take of this Amendment. With regard to the first part, I will not propose it if he does not wish it. There are two exceptions in the definition clause as to street trading, and I seek to except, in the first instance, street trading which is merely incidental to the delivery of goods by boys who are in the regular employment of shopkeepers and tradesmen. I am not quite sure how far those words are necessary, but I offer them to your Lordships' House. With regard to the second part, it is to protect a very particular class. There is a practice of children living in rural districts being sent by their parents to sell local produce at the markets. That would be street trading within the meaning of the Act. It is a matter of convenience to the parents, and no one can say that it does any harm. I imagine we should not think of suggesting restrictive legislation to prevent these children being so employed. I do not, however, wish to press this Amendment, but I leave it to your Lordships, and hope it will be accepted.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

It is very difficult to follow this, but I would like the noble Marquess to tell me whether the Amendment would exempt children under fourteen and allow them to do these things, or whether the age of fourteen which has just been accepted is to override everything?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is my intention. My Amendment is to the definition clause of the principal Act where it defines what street trading is.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I do not know whether the noble Marquess realises that it will be possible under his Amendment for a boy who is delivering milk in one end of a large city to be regarded as street trading. I think in the circumstances the noble Marquess will see that this does not quite meet his demands, and if he does not press the Amendment I think it will be an advantage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

After what the noble Earl has said I will confine my Amendment. to the second part.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 21, after ("school") insert the following now paragraph— (d) As if in section 13 there were added to the definition of "street trading" the words "but does not include the sale of agricultural prod ace in recognised markets."—(The Marquess of Salisbury)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD

I wish to speak on the use of the word "reformatory" in the last line of Clause 2, paragraph (c), and to ask Lord Shaftesbury whether he would not be disposed to substitute the word "industrial" for the word "reformatory." The word "reformatory" has a signification of crime attached to it, and I think that no child——

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I hope the noble Lord will not think me unduly persistent, but we have passed that, and the words last moved were added after that.

Clause 2 as amended, agreed to.

LORD FABER then formally moved his new clause to follow Clause 2.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new clause—

The Council of every municipal borough with a population of over ten thousand and the council of every urban district with a population of over twenty thousand shall make by-laws requiring, in respect of street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and by girls under the age of eighteen, the holding of a licence to trade granted by the council, and such by-laws shall regulate the conditions on which such licences will be granted, suspended, and revoked. Provided that every such council as aforesaid may, if they think fit, snake by-laws with respect. to street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and girls under the age of eighteen—

  1. (a)In the case of girls absolutely prohibiting street trading:
  2. (b)Determining the days and hours during which and the places at which street trading may be carried on:
  3. (c)Requiring such street traders to wear badges:
  4. (d)Regulating generally the conduct of such street traders.

Provided further as follows—

  1. (1)The grant of a licence or the right to trade shall not be made subject to any conditions having reference to the poverty or general bad character of the person applying for a licence or claiming to trade:
  2. (2)A by-law under this section shall not apply so as to prevent any boy or girl of the age of eleven or upwards from being with the parent of such boy or girl for the purpose of assisting the parent in the business of bonâ fide street trading.—(Lord Faber)

LORD SHEFFIELD

Would the noble Lord be willing to add to this clause power to county councils to make by-laws in any part of their area where they think such by-laws desirable?

LORD FABER

Perhaps the noble Lord will bring that up on Report? It is getting rather confusing. There are so many definitions before us now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

5. This Act shall come into operation on the first (lay of January one thousand nine hundred and thirteen.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved the substitution of January 1, 1912, for January 1, 1913, as the date upon which the Bill should become operative. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause which I am going to move after Clause 5. Originally I had intended that the Act should come into force on January 1, 1913, but inasmuch as I propose that there should be a little further mitigation with regard to statutory prohibition, I suggest that it should come into force in 1912. If this Bill passes in 1912 any child under fourteen will not be allowed to street trade, but any child that is at present between the age of eleven and fourteen will be allowed to carry on street trading. That will be the effect of Clause 5. I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("twelve")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY formally moved to insert a new clause after Clause 5.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new clause— . Nothing in this Act shall apply in the case of a person who, at the passing of this Act, holds a licence to trade granted by a local, authority in accordance with by-laws with respect to street trading made under the principal Act, and in regard to such person the provisions of the principal Act shall continue to apply.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I have one question to ask. I see that this applies to cases where local authorities have made by-laws. What happens in cases where a local authority has not made by-laws?

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

In the case in question it will be as the law exists at present.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

Short title and construction as to powers under Education Acts, 1870 to 1910

6. This Act may lie cited as the Employment of Children Act, 1911, and the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and this Act may be cited together as the Employment of Children Acts, 1903 and 1911.

This Act, so far as regards the exercise of powers under the Education Acts, shall be construed as one with the Education Acts, 1870 to 1910, and may be cited together with those Acts as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1885.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is really only a small matter of drafting. Every Act of Parliament has a long title and also a short title. This Act proposes to have two short titles, and I move to strike one of them out.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("and may be riled together with those Acts as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1885")—(The Marquess of Salisbury)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I agree

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule:

Session and chapter Short title Extent of Repeal.
3 Edw. 7, c.45 The Employment of Children Act,1903. Section two.
In subsection two of section three, the words "under the age of eleven."
In subsection one, subsection two and subsection three of section five, the words "under the age of sixteen
In subsection three of section five the words "of any by-law" and the word "made"
In section thirteen the words "in the case of the city of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city in common council assembled."

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I think it will be necessary on Report, considering the present shape that the Bill has got into, to amend this Schedule to the extent of not repealing Section 2 of the principal Act.

LORD FABER moved to omit from the Schedule the words in italics "'of any by-law' and the word made,'" and to insert "under the age of sixteen."

Amendment moved Page 2, third column, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("'of any by-law' and the word 'made'") and insert ("under the age of sixteen").—(Lord Faber.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD RITCHIE moved to omit from the Schedule of the Bill the proposal to repeal in Section 13 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, the provision that in the City of London the Common Council should have the control of street trading. The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl seeks to repeal this provision in the Act of 1903 in order to put the control of street trading in the hands of the education authority. But the education authority of the City of London is the London County Council, and the effect of this repeal would be to remove the control of street trading from the hands of the Corporation and place it in the hands of the London County Council. There would be this further effect, that the Corporation would be placed in an inferior position to any borough in the country with a population of over 10,000, and to any rural district with a population of over 20,000. I understand that during this session of Parliament a Select Committee of this House has passed a Bill promoted by the Corporation of the City which, amongst other provisions, contains one which extends their control over street trading, and that Bill I understand has the approval of the Home Secretary. Apart from the inconvenience and anomaly of having two overlapping authorities, I think it will be admitted that it is impossible for this House in one session to give with one hand and to take away with the other. They Corporation feels rather aggrieved, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to remove that feeling.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 27 to 30.—(Lord Ritchie)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I would not for the world grieve the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London, especially as they have taken great interest in this question, and certainly if they wish to be left in I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion that the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House,

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said

I would like to say one word on this Motion. I really do respectfully say to the Government that it is almost impossible for us to deal with a Home Office Bill unless the noble Earl who represents that Department is good enough to tell us what the Home Office thinks on all these matters. I take the example of my noble friend who has conducted this Bill with the greatest possible consideration and courtesy for everybody. He has just agreed to an Amendment moved by Lord Ritchie as regards the authority which is to carry out the Bill. I daresay it is right, but I am not at all sure it is right. It is a matter upon which certainly the Home Office ought to have expressed an opinion. Yet we have had not the least assistance from the noble Earl from beginning to end. I hope he will be able to indicate that we shall have the honour and pleasure of hearing him more frequently.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am very much flattered by the desire of the noble Marquess to hear me more frequently, and I hope to have the opportunity of meeting his wishes in the future. I was perfectly willing to assent to the Amendment of the noble Lord, but it is generally my practice not to delay the House, especially at this late hour, with expressions of assent from the Home Office. I was, however, quite prepared, if I had been directly appealed to, to express that approval. With regard to the general point on which the noble Marquess appeals to me, this is one of the matters upon which there are many experts already in this House, and the Home Office is not in the least unready to be guided, by experts who have very great knowledge of these questions. We might be open to some criticism, if we always came down with prepared opinions, and took no notice of expressions which come from various quarters of the House. I think the noble Marquess would then have cause to complain of me, perhaps even more bitterly than he does to-night.

House resumed: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday the 11th of May next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 43.)