§ LORD GORELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state the reason for 1029 their decision to appoint another Committee to inquire into the question of child adoption; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may appear at first sight as if the Motion which I have on the Paper had been to some extent anticipated by the debate which took place on the Bill of the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol, on March 18. But I think a very brief examination will suffice to show that that discussion has really added point to my Motion, especially in view of the remarks upon that Bill of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who, I understand, is to answer my Question. The noble and learned Viscount, in his remarks upon the Duke of Athol's Bill, made a point of the fact that there were two very different classes of people who would be affected by any measure dealing with child adoption, and made, special reference to what, in his own words, he described as a very serious class of case—namely, that particular class of case to which I had drawn attention on February 20.
§ I do not wish to say anything about the other class—namely, the class of children who are adopted by good parents, and for whom full legal powers were sought—I mean the class of people who would be affected by the Bill of the noble Duke. But I think we ought to have a clearer expression of the intentions of the Government with regard to the other class of case. I think, after the very horrible instances which I gave on February 20, and after the remarks which were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, on the Bill of the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol, it is not necessary to expatiate further upon what is nothing less than a system of child murder, or at any rate a traffic of a very horrible kind in infant life. I do not understand quite what the attitude of the Government is towards this. The noble and learned Viscount, speaking on the noble Duke's Bill, said that the Government were in full sympathy with the object which the noble Duke sought to effect.
§
When I raised a question with reference to the penalties now available under the law for cruelty to children, with special reference to adopted children, I was replied to on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl, Lord
1030
De La Warr, and I can only describe his answer as throwing cold water upon my suggestion that the present law was not adequate, and that further steps should be taken. He used these words—
The House will recognise that cruelty to children is a crime which is abhorrent to the minds of all decent people, and is rightly made punishable by the law of England as a grave offence for which severe penalties are provided.
I had given a very grave instance in which a comparatively trivial penalty had been provided, and had said that the utmost penalty that could be inflicted did not seem to me at all adequate to meet the very distressing circumstances of that case. Many other cases could be given. I did give other instances, and there has been a number of recent cases in the papers where the penalties given for comparatively trivial offences are almost as serious as those which are given for very heinous offences against adopted children. For example, there was a case the other day in which some one, for stealing snowdrops out of a garden, got very nearly as much as some one who set a child upon the bar of a fire.
§ The Government reply on that occasion, given by Earl De La Warr, was that His Majesty's Government were not aware that the present penalties for offences of this character were insufficient but that they would be prepared to consider any evidence on the point which might be laid before them. That seems to me hardly to be the proper attitude for any Government to take—namely, to wait until evidence from outside is brought before them. They should be themselves cognisant of the state of things. When one examines, generally, the attitude of the present Government towards this class of offence one finds that many of His Majesty's present advisers have been interesting themselves in a Bill which, I understand, is not to become law but which, nevertheless, shows the attitude of many members of the present Government towards this question. One of the provisions of that Bill is an increase of the penalties, and another is to enable much more supervision to be undertaken of those children who are adopted, whether for good purposes or for bad.
§ The only answer I got last February, and it was repeated on March 18, was that it was the intention of the Government to set up a strong Committee of 1031 Inquiry. When this was first announced, on February 20, it was greeted with applause from noble Lords opposite, and that seemed to me to reflect to some extent on their late Chancellor of the Exchequer, because Mr. Neville Chamberlain was a member of the Committee which inquired fully into this question. The Lord Chancellor, in replying to the noble Duke, referred more pointedly to Sir A. Hopkinson's Committee, but he referred to it only to say that some of the suggestions were clearly inadvisable—for example, the reference to the county courts. I do not understand, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will tell me, what has now caused him to decide upon a fresh Committee. The matter has been fully inquired into already, and it does not seem to me to be an adequate reason for appointing a second Committee to say that you have disagreed in certain particulars with the findings of the first. One would rather suppose it is for the Government to take into consideration the findings and Report of that Committee, make up their mind how far they could accept the recommendations and how far they would have to reject them.
§ The only reason we have been given, so far for setting up a new Committee is that this is a highly technical matter. That may be so, but it has been inquired into before and one can hardly see what more there is to be inquired into. It is now more than a month since the announcement was made that there is to be a fresh Committee, and if the Government really are in earnest on this matter there seems no reason why there should be any further delay. I do not think the Government have been quite consistent in this matter. There are a number of its members who feel strongly on the lines I have indicated, but when I raise the question from the point of view of the cruelty of child adoption I get nothing but cold water thrown over me, and when the noble Duke raises the matter a month later in a Bill dealing with the good side of child adoption he is told that everything must wait until the appointment of this fresh Committee. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will now be able to tell us what is in the mind of the Government, why they are going to set up this fresh Committee, what is the reason for another inquiry, and give an assurance that it really is the intention of the Government to proceed without 1032 circumlocution upon a matter which was described by all the members of the former Committee, three years ago, as extremely urgent, I beg to move.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, no doubt it was due to my imperfectly expressing myself on the last occasion but the noble Lord has wholly failed to appreciate the meaning of the point I made in reply to the noble Duke's Motion on the Second Reading of his Bill. It has not to do with any of the matters to which the noble Lord refers. It is this. There have been three Bills and a Report, every one of which has failed to appreciate the vital point. They have referred this question to the county courts oblivious of the fact that the county courts have no machinery at all to enable them to deal with the matter. I said quite clearly that the object of the Committee was to devise the machinery. The Committee will have the other matters before it to which the noble Lord has referred, and it may be that it will be satisfied with the Report of Sir Alfred Hopkinson's Committee, or it may be satisfied with the Bill which was introduced. But the primary purpose of the Committee will be to obtain the machinery.
LORD GORELLMy Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation? I shall be perfectly content if I can have an assurance from him that some action will be taken immediately. It is now nearly five weeks since the announcement was made that the Government intended to set up a Committee; and so far it is all still in the future.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe negotiations for the formation of the Committee were begun even before the noble. Duke introduced his Bill.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.