TREATMENT OF VAGRANTS.

HL Deb 10 December 1930 vol 79 cc481-500

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to secure more uniform and humane treatment of vagrants, and especially to ask whether any steps have been taken to found any institutions to train juvenile vagrants; also to ask whether public assistance committees have any power to make grants towards the maintenance of existing institutions for the reclamation and training of young vagrants; and to move for Papers.

The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, in putting ibis Question I should like first to say that wt are very grateful indeed for the Vagrancy Report. It has been called, and rightly called, the Casuals' Charter. We are, however, somewhat alarmed lest it may share the fate of several other Reports that have been made—lest it may remain only an aspiration and not come to be a reality. It says, in the Report, very truly indeed, that there has been a signal failure in many cases to comply with the existing regulations. We are first anxious to know whether any steps will be taken by which the regulations suggested in this Vagrancy Report will be put into force. We are also very grateful for another passage in the Vagrancy Report, but again we want to know whether that will be implemented, or whether it is only a pious aspiration. We are told that the local authority has power now to subscribe to organisations which have for their object the recovery of the status of young tramps and—these are most important words—to organise such centres themselves. We are very anxious about this because if any one county advances before the others, the inevitable result will be that it will attract the whole stream of tramps. Therefore, we are anxious that if any forward step is taken we can be certain that similar steps will be taken in other parts of the country.

We are also very grateful, more than we can say, for Dr. Lewis's Report. I personally wish that it could be published as a separate pamphlet. It is the first time, I think, that we have had really reliable data as to who the tramps were. Hitherto the popular idea has been that they consisted of people who would not work, and people who wanted work and could not find it. Those who have worked among them know that there is a very large section who should rather be included under the term "cannot work." Dr. Lewis brings that fact out. The figures are very remarkable. He asserts, with all his knowledge, that a quarter of the tramps in the country are what are usually termed "mentals." Some are insane, a very large section are feeble-minded, and a good number have psychoneurosis—shell-shock of various sorts. It does seem to alter the whole picture when one remembers that these poor feebleminded creatures are being sent to wander about the country to look for work which does not exist and which, if they found it, they could not do. Surely no one could commend a system which has that for its result?

The criticism I will offer of the Report is that the casual ward is to continue. Those who are employable will find it less helpful to get employment than it used to be. I agree that that section is a small one. Dr. Lewis suggests that 80 per cent. are habitually users of the casual ward. I suppose one might say that probably that 80 per cent. are more or less unemployable, but the 20 per cent. who are employable will find that the regulations which are advised in this Report make it harder for them to find work. In the first place, the casual wards are to be fifteen miles apart. I passed a cowman the other day. He came from Hampshire, with his wife and children, and had walked down to Devonshire. Can you ask that man to walk fifteen miles, very probably in rain, and then look for work by going round the farms perhaps for another ten miles? Clearly all he can do, when he has done his fifteen miles, is to go to the next casual ward, and there again seek 'shelter, remain a day confined, and the next day go on for a further fifteen miles. How can that man, after tramping fifteen miles, look for work? There is a regulation in a similar institution in Germany which I think is far better—namely, that if a man can show that he is really seeking work, he may go back again and again to the same casual ward. That enables the man really to look for work in that district. All that is required of him is the performance in the afternoon of the day of a certain task to pay for his lodging. In such a case men could make for the centres where they could hope to find work, and have a place in which they could sleep. They could then set out and search for work.

The regulation suggested would also make it very hard in another case—a case which often happened in my own home district, where the hay harvest was a very important element in agriculture. Just as the hay harvest was about to be cut the rain would come on, and no farmer would cut his hay. The whole body of men who were drawn in from London and elsewhere were left suddenly without work. They would go to these casual wards. Now it was grossly unfair that those men should be kept in for a full day, for very likely the sun would come out the next day, and farmers would begin to cut the hay. The result of that regulation will be that many men will "lay rough," as they call it, and not go into the casual ward.

But when all has been said about the employable, one must remember that the largest section of dwellers in the casual ward are the unemployable. Some of them are unemployable for reasons that cannot be altered. Both at Batcombe, in Dorsetshire, and quite lately at Blackborough, in Devonshire, we have institutions by which we teach young vagrants to be useful members of society. We have had a very small experience at Blackborough, but Batcombe has a longer experience and the results are most encouraging. Many of these boys who are on the road are there through no fault of their own. A common example is this. The father is out of work. The other sons or daughters are also out of work. The boy very often goes away without the knowledge of his father and mother, as he would rather walk the roads than become a burden to his parents, especially if he knows the family budget is not sufficient to keep the younger children as they should be kept. It is very hard to treat these boys as if they had committed an offence against society. They have done their best to serve society; they behave bravely; and it is an extraordinarily harsh doctrine, because they are in a casual ward, that therefore they should be treated with anything like severity.

There is another section who could be reclaimed, only we need, not perhaps merely places in which to reclaim them, but an alteration in the law. I refer now to the section in the casual wards through drink. Dr. Lewis puts the proportion as one in eight. I made inquiries in Germany and found they put it very much higher, but perhaps you may say that the conditions in Germany are different from those in England. I think, however, a great number of people will say that beyond those men who are in the casual ward from such drunkenness as has left physical marks upon them, there are a very considerable number who have assisted their downfall by drink. Now you cannot save these men merely by giving them short terms of imprisonment. If they do get work and begin to drink again, what can you do? They go to prison and they come out. I should like this alteration made in the law—though I know it is regarded in the Report as quite an impossibility—that men should be allowed voluntarily to enlist in those homes which it is hoped that the counties will set up, and that that voluntary enlistment should be binding on them. After all, if a man goes on a ship he signs on for a certain definite time and he is bound by his signature. He does not count himself, because he is a sailor, a man who has lost his liberty. Again, men are enlisted in His Majesty's Army or Navy for much longer terms. Surely, it is not too much to ask that it should be possible for a man quite voluntarily to enlist in these homes for a definite time, so that when that time is finished he can leave the place if he chooses, but for that definite time he would sign an undertaking to stay.

Dr. Lewis points out that the intellect of these feeble-minded tramps is that which an ordinary boy of seven or eight possesses. I ask you, my Lords, can you trust children of seven and eight to be sensible? Could any of our schools go on if boys could leave them when they liked? Clearly if the discipline irked them they would leave. Yet how can you hope to do any good without some discipline? I should like very much to see that alteration in the law, if it were possible—namely, that in these homes, when they are set up, people can sign on under definite agreements to remain there three months or six months. I do not want these homes to be thought of as prisons. I would much rather they were looked upon as hospitals or schools. I do not want those who go into them to be called prisoners, but rather let them be called patients or pupils, for the object of these homes would be to recover those who are sick and to teach those who are ignorant. Many of those who are feeble minded can become quite useful citizens if they are properly trained, but we must have power to train them. They can learn quite definite things——things that are not very complicated—but you must have some power to train them. Every casual ward on the road should lead to such an institution. These people wander about the country with no object. When you cross-examine them you find they are not going anywhere, but are just wandering about—dismally cold, broken-hearted, with no hope of any recovery.

I know that it will be argued that we cannot for a moment deprive the subject of his liberty. But do you realise that at the present moment if a casual goes day after day into casual wards, he does in fact undergo 180 days or so of imprisonment—alternate days? He is practically imprisoned without sentence and without trial. He has six months' imprisonment. Surely, it is far better, instead of inflicting that quite unnecessary punishment upon him to allow him, to encourage him, definitely to sign away his liberty? As I have said, I hope that the institution would not be in any way a prison, but that it would be more a hospital or a school, where a man's health would be looked after and his education completed so that he would become a useful citizen. Having said this I wish to add that I do not want you to think of these places as detention colonies. A detention colony is essentially part of the penal system of the country. I hold that they are a very useful addition to our present penal system, but it can never be hoped that they will work well unless they are looked on as essentially part of the prison system.

I told your Lordships, when on a previous occasion I had the honour of addressing you on this subject, that I visited one in Switzerland which much impressed me. But its success depended on the fact that it was worked in conjunction with a prison. The men in it were there by sentence of a Court. They had been properly tried and found guilty of some distinct offence against society. They had been sent first to Thorberg and then from there to Witzwill. It is much easier to preserve discipline in a detention colony if the men know there is a prison behind it. I saw no locks, no keys, no armed warders. There was no attempt to escape, although they were only a little way from the frontier, because they knew if they did try to escape and were caught they would not go back to Witzwill but would go back to Thorberg. The Governor told me that on New Year's Day he would receive many letters of gratitude from those who had received great benefit in that detention colony. I should like to see such a detention colony established in England, but I should like to see it established by the central Government in connection with the prison system. I should not like to see it set up in any particular county. We must provide places for those who are hopelessly unfitted, by their constant petty crimes, to lead the lives of good citizens, but they should be sent there by order of the Court.

To return to the question of the casual wards: I would be grateful for the reform if it goes through. The sweet water of reform has gone in, I quite agree, at one end of the pipe, but I do not know that much has come down to us yet. We do not see any symptoms of it. We are very anxious that we shall see an alteration. I would go further and say that I would like to make it much easier for these people to stop than to wander. The other day a poor ostler was picked up dead outside my own door. How could you blame that poor man, an ostler, because he could not find work? Is it not true, as Dr. Lewis said, that men in adversity may be victims and not culprits? How can you fairly say that these men should find work? Surely one must realise that as long as present conditions exist in the industries of the country there must be great numbers of men willing to work, but unable to work because they are without training and are no longer of any use.

Again, as Dr. Lewis says in that very remarkable report, while the men who have their full senses took very good care of their feet, it was characteristic of the feeble-minded that they would leave their feet uncared for until the sores caused them miserable pain. Can you picture to yourselves these child-men, with intellects of a child of seven or eight, wandering along the roads in miserable pain and receiving at the end of it only all the contempt that is poured upon a tramp? Surely such conditions are not consonant with our honour. I asked an Italian the other day why there were no tramps in Italy, and his answer stung me, as it should every Englishman. He said: "It it not in accordance with the honour of our country, so we do not permit it."

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH

My Lords, I should not have ventured to address you on so early a day after my admission to this House unless this had been a subject which had been very much in my mind for a large number of years. I have had certain particular opportunities of coming into close contact with it. We all, I imagine, realise that the problem of dealing with vagrants is as difficult a one as we could have to deal with. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Exeter rather assumed that we were dealing mainly with those who were feeble-minded or were seeking employment. I believe that those whose mental capacity is not up to a fair average are quite a small proportion of the number of vagrants, and that unemployment has very little to do with it. No doubt there are cases where men go seeking employment up and down the country, but for the most part they do not go into casual wards, and they are quite a small proportion of the whole. I think it will be found, if you ask masters of workhouses and people who are in contact with vagrants, that they will tell you that the number of vagrants at present is no larger, and in most parts very much smaller, than it was before the War. It is not generally found that the great amount of unemployment at the present time has added very materially to the number of vagrants.

I venture to think that you cannot deal with this question at all without discriminating very carefully between the relatively small minority, in respect of whom there is a real chance of doing something in the directions to which the right rev. Prelate has alluded, and the very much larger proportion who certainly will not be dealt with satisfactorily by any of those methods. You have to ask yourselves what it is that makes vagrants. There are two main factors. The first is that most of them like it. They like the freedom from restraint, they like the mixed company that they get in common lodging-houses, and the adventurousness of the life, on the whole, appeals to them, so long as they get shelter at night and sufficient food. They do get sufficient food and shelter because there are a sufficient number of people who will give them what they want without any real inquiry into their circumstances or their needs. The two main factors, therefore, are the roving disposition of a very large number of people who want to lead this kind of life and the kindheartedness of a large number of people who see them and are moved with compassion, because the kind of thing to which the right rev. Prelate has just referred—such as sore feet or other physical circumstance—makes a strong appeal. The result is that the vagrants pick up what is not, perhaps, for them an unreasonable income in that kind of way.

I do not say this without very considerable inquiry into circumstances and cases which have brought me reluctantly to the conclusion that the mass of vagrants cannot be dealt with in the kind of way in which the right rev. Prelate wants them to be dealt with, at least with any satisfactory result. Some years ago, when I was in a large town, a considerable number of people came to me from time to time in need, and among them a number of vagrants. I took pains to investigate as thoroughly as I could every case that came before me over a considerable period of time, and I came to the conclusion that only one out of a very large number (I have not the exact numbers in mind at the present moment) gave a story that was in any respect true, in so far as I could test it. In that one case the story was true in so far as the man had come from the place from which he said that he had come and that his trade was that which he had declared it to be. But nothing else in his circumstances made him a suitable person to be dealt with by relief, or by any other help that I could give. A body of persons in whom I was interested, and who were thoroughly competent, took a hundred of these cases one after the other and investigated them as thoroughly as they could. They came to the same conclusion as I have done. Not one ease was a case which you could treat as a case of vagrancy of such a character that, if you dealt with it in a proper way, you could reform.

A more striking instance was the inquiry, that took place some time ago, three or four years after the War, in one of the big Midland towns, where the authorities of the local branch of the British Legion were very much concerned with the large number of ex-Service men who came on the roads, and who could not be dealt with satisfactorily. Accordingly a request was made to a voluntary body of persons in this town to deal with them, if they could undertake the task. They arranged with the Young Men's Christian Association to put the men up and give them shelter for as many days as were necessary until their inquiries were completed. After six months the result of their investigation was so sorry a one, and involved so much useless trouble and expense, that they asked the British Legion whether they thought it was worth their while to continue. They were told "Go on," and a little later they returned in the same way with the same result. Again they were told to go on, and they went on for nearly three years. During that time some 800 cases were investigated, and the result of the investigation was that a very large majority of these men were found to be persons whom you really could not help at all. Either their stories were unveracious and they did not tell the truth anywhere, so that you could not begin your inquiry, or when you began you found that there were circumstances of character or something of the sort which made it impossible to give any help. I do not think it is too much to say that, among the persons who come before a public body of this kind as vagrants, there is not more than one in about 500 to whom you can effectually give help.

If this is the case, the vagrancy problem becomes an extraordinarily difficult one. I really think that there are only two main lines of remedy, if you want to do anything to relieve these people in the way in which the right rev. Prelate desires. The first is to direct public, attention to the matter and to persuade the public that they may really leave vagrants to the care of the authorities or of voluntary bodies who are trained and equipped to deal with them effectually, and that their alms, personally given, do harm and not good. If you can do this, you are doing something, in fact a great deal, to check vagrancy. But, of course, it is extraordinarily difficult to do this. What you can do, whenever you get a chance, is to get a man to his home, where he has a far better chance of getting work, if he can and will work. Whatever influences you can bring to bear upon him will be very much better brought to bear there than anywhere else. To have institutions up and down the country to receive him is not really going to be helpful. The kind of person that is likely to commit himself to the care of an institution of that sort for an indefinite time under discipline is very rare indeed. The main hope of dealing with vagrancy is to persuade people that they really cannot give personal help effectively, and that they should leave vagrants to the authorities to deal with, while at the same time doing all that is possible to return these men to their homes. I feel that these are the only ways in which you can deal with this problem of vagrancy.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I want to ask the Government one or two questions arising out of the Report to which reference has been made by the Bishop of Exeter. The Report of the Departmental Committee is not only important on account of its substance, but it is also, I think, one of the most attractively written Reports which have appeared for a very long time. It is much more readable than most of these Reports, and it makes a number of practical suggestions, some of which can be carried out without any additional legislation. At the very commencement the Committee point out that the conditions in some wards—and of course they are speaking only of some casual wards—are extremely bad. I will quote their actual words. In the first place, we find it stated in the Report that "in a certain number of casual wards the conditions now existing are infamous and intolerable." Those are very strong words, and they are stronger because the Report throughout is so restrained in its language. The Committee then go on in the Report to give instances which compelled them to describe some of the wards as infamous and intolerable.

Now this Report was issued in July of this year. In the following month a circular was issued by the Ministry of Health, in which the attention was called of the authorities to these reproaches, and the Minister urged that immediate and vigorous steps should be taken for a general overhaul of the casual ward arrangements, so that decent and seemly provision might be made for the accommodation of casuals. I am anxious to know whether during these four months those steps have been taken. It is surely impossible for us to allow these conditions to continue without immediate action. The Minister of Health found the names of the wards which were condemned in this way, and I hope that the spokesman of the Government will be able to tell us that if the wards were visited to-day it would be impossible to describe them as "infamous and intolerable."

The second question that I wish to ask is in connection wtih a point which was raised by the Bishop of Exeter. He told us that this Report had brought out in a very striking way that a large number of the casuals who are to be found on any one night in the casual wards are suffering from some form or other of mental deficiency. 592 casuals were examined, and out of these there were 93 mental defectives. In addition, 32 were insane, and 34were suffering from some form of psycho-neurosis. Thus, if this proportion is applied to the 12,000 casuals who are to be found on any one night, it means that in our wards and on our streets there are wandering about something like 1,800 people who are mentally defective, and 600 who are insane, as well as 600 who are suffering from some kind of nervous defect. The Committee reports that it is quite convinced "that there is an appreciable number of casuals who are certifiable under the Lunacy Acts." The recom- mendations which the Committee make are these. They recommend that the officer in charge of the wards should report to the authorities any case in which there appears to be some mental illness, and, what is much more important, they recommend that the medical officer of health should at least once a month pay a visit—an unexpected visit—to the casual ward, and medically inspect those there in order to see whether any of them are suffering from any mental illness. This recommendation can be carried out without any legislation, and it was referred to in the circular issued in August. I am anxious to know if any definite steps have been taken in accordance with that recommendation.

There is one other point which is very important, for I think it goes to the root of the whole question. I am anxious to know what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the different areas which are dealing with this problem. Throughout the whole of this Report great emphasis was laid on the fact that usually you find ineffective administration when the unit of administration is small, and you find good administration, cleanliness in the wards, and a certain amount of care taken of the individuals, when the area of administration is large. When the Local Government Bill was before the House in March, 1929, I ventured to move an Amendment making it compulsory for the Minister of Health to combine areas for this purpose. Noble Lords opposite spoke with great friendliness of the principle underlying that Amendment, but they pointed out that there were obvious objections to the particular form which the Amendment took. The Amendment was negatived, and I think perhaps rightly, for there were obvious difficulties pointed out in debate; but those who opposed the actual Amendment spoke most strongly about the necessity of the vagrancy problem being dealt with by large areas.

Where you have a number of small authorities it is impossible to deal with the question properly. You have conflicting rules in different institutions within a few miles of each other. Also, where you have a small unit of administration, the officials find it almost impossible to attend properly to the casuals. All through the day their attention is being taken up by the sick, the infirm and the needy, and when in the evening the casuals arrive they are regarded as a kind of side product. This was brought out very strikingly in a book written by Close who are recognised, I think, as the greatest authorities on English local government, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb. The book was published about a year ago, and the noble Lord on the Government Bench will no doubt endorse the quotation which I am about to read:— It is impossible to persuade any local authority that the maintenance of the wandering vagrants is a legitimate charge on the local rates; or to ensure, from many scores of separate authorities, the adoption of that uniform standard of accommodation and treatment which is desirable to prevent the flocking of vagrants to the casual wards in which they are made most comfortable. Still more hopeless is it to expect, from any number of separate authorities, any common action in the establishment of anything better than the reluctant provision of gratuitous bed and hoard for this wandering host. Only a national authority could arrange for a systematic sorting-out of the different classes of which the constantly changing army is composed. Where you have a combination there is more possibility of dealing with the problem as a whole, and the Report of the Committee on the relief of the Casual Poor says that its recommendations will be ineffective unless this combination is carried out on quite a large scale. It is suggested that there shall be only twelve authorities for the whole of the country. I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can tell us what steps have been taken towards the co-ordination of existing authorities, for only through co-ordination of the existing authorities on a large scale will you be able to deal with this extremely difficult problem in both a humane and scientific manner.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY)

My Lords, I am sure the House will have been very glad to recognise the humane manner in which this question has been dealt with by the right rev. Prelate who opened the discussion. The Bishop of Exeter is the sixty-fifth Bishop of Exeter to sit in this House, and I ant bound to admit, and I am supported in this by the Report to which reference has been made, that vagrancy existed long before there were Bishops of Exeter. The Report, in the opening paragraph, points out that vagrancy has always been a difficult problem, and it is said in the covering letter:— The vagrant is a figure in national life all through English history. 'Remote, Unfriended, melancholy, slow,' he goes on his way, a picturesque and pathetic figure. The subject of the vagrant was considered by a Departmental Committee appointed in 1904, and they made many recommendations, a few of which have been adequately carried out, but the unsatisfactory position which has been referred to by the three Bishops who have spoken compelled the appointment of the Departmental Committee which reported in July of this year.

Roughly speaking, the Report indicates that about half of the vagrants are genuinely seeking work. Whether they are capable of obtaining work or not, I am not competent to judge. The Report is extremely interesting reading, and very well written. I would refer your Lordships particularly to Section 4 of the Report, with the paragraphs starting at paragraph 34. In paragraph 38, to which reference has been made, the Report says:— .… we find it our duty to record that in a certain number of casual wards the conditions now existing are infamous and intolerable. Some of the members of our Committee have visited wards where two men are locked in a small cell that was built for one person, and kept there in darkness for 12 or 13 hours. Paragraph 39 deals with the details of these conditions. In some casual wards there are no baths and no clothes for the night, so that each man lies down on a wooden floor, dirty and dusty, in his own clothes for the night. It gives other details over which I need not detain your Lordships, because I trust that every member of this House will read the Report for himself; there is a great deal to be gained from it. Paragraph 40 deals with the time over which these conditions have existed—very many years. Paragraph 41 points out that boards of guardians, in some of the areas, have actually refused to put right the very matters to which attention has been drawn. Paragraph 42 says that even the regulations of the local authorities have not been observed by some of those responsible for administering them. Paragraph 43 deals with the monotonous nature, and sometimes the badness, of the food supply.

Paragraph 44 deals with an aspect which is particularly interesting to this House—the fact that many of the vagrants complain, not of the amount of work they have to do, but of the trivial, uninteresting and degrading nature of the work, which these suggested training homes would certainly obviate, and which can be dealt with by a better organisation of work in existing casual wards. Paragraph 45 is interesting because reference was made by one of the speakers today to the fact that those in charge have not time to deal with the casuals themselves, and so sometimes one vagrant is himself appointed—what is called the "tramp major." There is a picturesque phrase in the Report written by a habitual vagrant who was serving a sentence of imprisonment and was asked by the Governor to write his view of casual wards. He says:— There is a lacky knocking a bout what they call a tramp major, this man is off the road, and he is a dirty Broot as a Rool he stops in for a month or two doing part of the Porters work for a Bit of tobacco. Apparently the tramp majors are rough with the vagrants with whom they have to deal. My right hon. friend the Minister was very much concerned with the Report, and he felt compelled, as the right rev. Prelate pointed out, to obtain the names of the particular casual wards which were pilloried as being "infamous and intolerable." I have no intention of giving those names, but I may say that he took immediate action to secure improvement in those particular wards.

Then, on August 13, 1930, the Minister issued a circular, No. 1140, to all county councils, county boroughs and joint vagrancy committees, and with it he enclosed a copy of the Report to which reference has been made. Let me quote one part. It says:— In Part IV of the Report a judgment is expressed as to the badness of the conditions now prevailing in certain casual wards, which the Minister has noted with the deepest concern and regret. He is confident that the new authorities will agree with him that no branch of public administration ought to be allowed to continue liable to such reproaches, and that immediate and vigorous steps will he taken for a general overhaul of casual ward arrangements, so that decent and seemly provision may be made everywhere for the accommodation of casuals. It goes on to say— He" (the Minister) "has instructed the General Inspectors to co-operate closely with local authorities, and to keep him informed of progress in securing the needed improvements, and he has it in mind in the autumn to detail an officer or officers for special work in this matter. I am sure that all the right rev. Prelates will be interested to know that in connection with that paragraph there are twelve of those General Inspectors, including a Chief Inspector, and that, in addition, there are four special Assistant Inspectors who are doing the additional work referred to in the last sentence I have quoted.

Since then the Minister has learnt with very great satisfaction that many councils and joint vagrancy committees, after studying the Report, have themselves undertaken an examination of the wards to which reference had been made. They are responsible for those wards, and they themselves set about the work of improving the conditions which were found to be unsatisfactory. Your Lordships are aware, of course, that the responsibility for the relief of the casual poor has only rested with these councils since April of this year under the new Act. Therefore, there has not been a great deal of time. Nevertheless, it is gratifying that so many councils have found time and opportunity to take in hand so promptly this particular part of their new duties.

I was asked for figures regarding these joint vagrancy committees. Let me say that eighteen such combinations have already been created by statutory Orders, and forty-three administrative counties and sixty-seven county borough have been thus combined into eighteen joint vagrancy committees. In addition to that proposals are now being considered for five more joint vagrancy committees, which will include eleven additional administrative counties and sixteen county boroughs.

May I point out that the Report contains a good many recommendations for the more humane treatment of destitute vagrants? In that connection my right hon. friend has actually in draft at the present moment a new Order which will regulate the relief of casuals and will embody such recommendations of the Report as can be made effective by means of an Order. With this Order the Minister intends to issue a circular drawing attention to such other recommendations in the Report as cannot be dealt with suitably by regulation. I should like, in connection with this point, to say how much your Lordships' House appreciated what, I think, was the maiden speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich. The practical way in which he dealt with this problem and the facts he put forward will, I know, ensure that the House will be very anxious to hear him on very many future occasions. The Minister has also started a systematic inspection of all casual wards and those additional inspectors to whom I referred will be engaged in that work during the coming months. I cannot tell your Lordships the date on which this new Order will be issued, but it is in draft and it will be issued in a very few days.

With regard to the latter part of the Question, which refers to juvenile vagrants, paragraphs 120 to 125 of the Report deal particularly with the work at present undertaken in training young casuals and redeeming them from a life of vagrancy. In those paragraphs the Committee state that at present the work undertaken for the redemption of casuals is very limited and that the degree of success achieved is difficult to measure. They refer particularly, and your Lordships will all heartily endorse this, to the work done by the Salvation Army and the Church Army in the homes and establishments that those organisations have set up. They refer also to the St. Francis Home, Batcombe, which was mentioned by the Lord Bishop of Exeter and which appears, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, to be a most valuable example on a very small scale of what ought to be done very much more widely.

The Committee, as I have said, recommend the grouping of neighbouring counties and county boroughs, and I have given your Lordships figures showing the extent to which that grouping has already been carried out. May I also point out that all vagrancy committees constituted in this way have power to contribute, by annual subscription, towards the support and maintenance of any institution which appears to them calculated to render useful aid in the administration of the relief of casuals. They thus have power to make grants towards the maintenance not only of existing institutions but of any new institutions which may be established. Moreover, by Section 67 of the Poor Law Act of this year, councils of counties and county boroughs have power to contribute by annual subscription towards the support and maintenance of any institution which appears to them to be calculated to render useful aid in the administration of the relief of the poor. Under this head we suggest that they could by way of subscription encourage the formation of training homes for casuals and others.

Dr. Lewis's report has been referred to and reference made to the number of mental defectives who are included among vagrants. I always feel that it would be much better to segregate mental defectives into homes and places where they can be dealt with from an educational point of view. The table given on page 15 of the Report shows as a fact that in 1030 only fifty-seven out of a total of 2,324 vagrants were between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, and that only five were under sixteen. Those figures are taken from the count which was made on February 14, 1930.

Before I conclude I should like to refer your Lordships to the Children Act of 1908. That Act deals with the question of the expenses of certified schools. Section 118 of the Act points out that if a person habitually wanders from place to place and takes with him any child above the age of five he shall, unless he proves certain things connected with school attendance, be liable on conviction to be fined, and shall for the purposes of the provisions of the Act relating to the descriptions of children who may be sent to a certified industrial school, be deemed not to be exercising proper guardianship over the child. That has raised difficulty. Section 118 of the Children Act means that wanderers who take children above the age of five from place to place with them may be fined, and the children may he ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school. But somebody has to pay for that, and under Section 74 of the Act no local education authority can he compelled to pay the expenses of a child sent to a certified industrial school. They may do it; but it is not the habit of such bodies voluntarily to spend the rates on children for whom they are not statutorily and compulsorily responsible.

The Departmental Committee on the Relief of the Casual Poor expressed the hope, in paragraph 118 of their Report, that an early opportunity would be taken to make such amendments in the Children Act as would make it more easily practicable to take action under Section 118 to which I have referred. I may say for the information of your Lordships that a Bill to amend the Children Act is now being prepared, and it is proposed that this Bill shall include provisions designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on this point. I do not think that there are any Papers that I can usefully suggest in response to the Motion, except the new Order which will be issued in the course of the next few days or, at the most, weeks.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I only intervene for a moment in this debate because the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark called attention to a few words which fell from me during the debate in Committe stage on the Local Government Bill, and referred to an Amendment which he moved and which I ventured to suggest at the time was scarcely necessary, for various reasons. One was that the difficulty to which he referred would be largely removed, because the Bill as it was then was going to do away with the separate unions and smaller authorities, and bring the subject under a wider area. I also referred to the fact that under Clause 3 of the Bill the Minister would have power to combine, even against their will, authorities into joint committees. I think, if I may say so, that noble Lords on this side of the House listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, with some considerable satisfaction, because, in spite of the strenuous opposition which noble Lords opposite raised to our Bill, it appears that the satisfactory state of affairs which the noble Lord has described to your Lordships is very largely, if not wholly, due to the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1929. I suggest that the Government of that day should not be so wholly condemned as it was at the time by noble Lords opposite, but rather that they should thank them, because it has given the noble Lord, Lord Marley, an opportunity of making a very satisfactory speech to your Lordships, and of describing a state of things that is evidently improving, and which, in consequence of the provisions of the Act to which I have referred, is likely to improve in the future.

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER

My Lords, I do not press for Papers.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at five o'clock.