Lords Sitting of 9 June 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Procedure Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Before your Lordships proceed with this Bill may I, with your consent, raise a point of procedure? It will be within your recollection that this Bill received the Second Reading exactly a fortnight ago, on May 26, and since that time your Lordships have received almost daily Notices of Amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill. There have been, if my recollection is correct, nearly fifteen different documents sent to your Lordships containing these various Amendments. It has been very difficult for those of us who wish to follow the Bill to sort them out. The first Amendment appeared on May 27, the day after the Second Reading, and the last appeared yesterday. What I want to ask is whether it would not be possible, say once a week, to have a Marshalled List of Amendments sent to the members of your Lordships' House, which would at least facilitate your task, and you would be able to study the Bill more at leisure. That is a procedure which is not unknown in another place. It is obviously for the convenience of your Lordships, and I cannot see any possible difficulty in carrying it out.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The suggestion which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships is one of great interest, but it seems to me that it would be rather difficult to carry out in practice. It has, I think I am right in saying, been the invariable practice of your Lordships to issue the Amendments in the way which has been referred to by the noble Lord, and to that your Lordships are accustomed. I think if a Marshalled List were to be issued on a certain day it would lead to some confusion, because I do not think it would be possible to do away with the practice which we follow at present of issuing the Amendments as they are handed in to the learned Clerks at the Table. If the Marshalled List were not to come out at the latest possible occasion, as it does now—it was in your Lordships' hands this morning—it would mean that there would be a host of manuscript Amendments to be dealt with which would not appear in the Marshalled List. I am inclined to think that that would lead to confusion. Your Lordships will remember occasions when we have had very big Bills with 400 or 500 Amendments—take, for example, the Local Government Bill with which the noble Viscount (Lord Hailsham) and myself were connected. We had an early Marshalled List, perhaps a week before the Committee stage, but that was only a perfunctory affair. It did not profess to contain all the Amendments, and I think the privilege of your Lordships to hand in Amendments up to the last moment would be one your Lordships would be anxious to preserve. I am doubtful if you could issue a Marshalled List unless you were to say, after perhaps two days before the Bill came on for consideration in Committee, that no further Amendment should be handed in.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): On a point of order. I suggest that as we have no Motion before the Committee, and have a great deal of business to do, it would be much more convenient if the noble Lord would put down a Motion, or discuss the matter privately with the Lord Chairman, because otherwise the chance we have of finishing the relevant business

687
of the House will be very much diminished.
Clause 1:
Juvenile courts.
1.—(1) Courts of summary jurisdiction constituted as hereafter provided in this Part of this Act shall sit so often as is necessary for the following purposes, that is to say—

(i) to hear charges against children and young persons;

(ii) to hear applications, the hearing of which is by rules made under this section assigned to juvenile courts;

(iii) to exercise any other jurisdiction conferred on juvenile courts by this or any other Act;

and such courts so constituted and sitting for any such purpose shall be known as juvenile courts and in whatever place sitting, shall be deemed to be petty sessional courts.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, no such charge or application as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection shall be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a juvenile court:
Provided that—
(i) this subsection shall not apply where a child or young person is charged with an offence jointly with a person who has attained the age of seventeen years or where a child or young person is charged with an offence, and a person who has attained the age of seventeen years is charged at the same time with aiding, abetting, causing, procuring, allowing or permitting that offence; and
(3) A juvenile court sitting for the purpose of hearing a charge against, or an application relating to, a person who is believed to be a child or young person may, if they think fit so to do, proceed with the hearing and determination of the charge or application, notwithstanding that it is discovered that the person in question is not a child or young person.
(4) A juvenile court shall not without the approval of the Secretary of State sit—

(a) in a building mainly or exclusively used as a police station, or for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts;

(b) in a room ordinarily used for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts;

and the Secretary of State—

(i) in approving the use by juvenile courts of any such building or room as aforesaid, may impose such conditions as he thinks proper; and

(ii) shall not approve the use by juvenile courts of any such room as aforesaid unless he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide some other and suitable room for the use of such courts.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN) moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"A charge made jointly against a child or young person and a person who has attained the age of seventeen years shall, for the purposes of this section, not be treated as a charge against a child or young person."
The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships have seen, there are a great many Amendments on the Paper, and I shall not prolong the business unnecessarily. The explanations that it will be necessary for me to make I shall try to make as briefly as is consistent with clarity. The first Amendment I have to move is to remove an ambiguity in the Bill. The object of this and the next Amendment is to make it clear beyond doubt that a case in which a child or young person is charged jointly with a person over seventeen cannot be dealt with in a juvenile court. Under the Bill as it stands the first part of proviso (1) to Clause 1 (2) gives an indication that the adult court is the proper court to deal with a case in which a person under seventeen is charged jointly with an adult. The clause, however, does not contain any explicit prohibition against dealing with adults in the juvenile court, and on a narrow construction it might he held that a joint charge against the person under seventeen and a person over seventeen is a charge against a child or young person within the meaning of Clause 1 (1) (i). Although the general tendency of Clause 1 as a whole is to suggest that these joint charges should be dealt with in the adult court, it has been pointed out that there is no provision in the Bill to prevent the juvenile court dealing with them. That is the purpose of this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved, in proviso (i) of subsection (2), to leave out "where a child or young person is charged with an offence jointly with a person who has attained the age of seventeen years or." The noble Viscount said: This is consequential on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("apply") to ("where") in line 9.—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved to add to subsection (2):
"(iii) Where a person who has attained the age of sixteen years and is under the age of seventeen years is charged with an offence, such charge may be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a juvenile court, and a court of summary jurisdiction, whether a juvenile court or not, may in their discretion deal with such a person either as a young person or as a person to whom this Act does not apply."
The noble and learned Lord said: I think I shall be able to explain to the Committee the object of this Amendment without detaining it very long. The matter that has perhaps caused more doubt than anything as to the wisdom of this Act in the minds of people who are charged with the administration of the Criminal Law is the increase of age of the persons who are defined as young persons. The age is now raised from under sixteen to under seventeen, and it is with certain classes of certain offenders of the age of sixteen that this Amendment proposes to deal.
The object of the original Children Act is twofold. Juvenile courts are instituted for the purpose of preventing children who are charged with offences from being contaminated by association in the court with adult criminals. The other object is that they should be treated with proper care when you come to deal with the offences, and that they should not be contaminated by being associated in prison with prisoners, and, therefore, the punishment of imprisonment has been withdrawn altogether in the case of young persons under the Children Act of 1908 unless one of two things can be proved—namely, that they are so unruly that they cannot be sent to a place of detention, or that they are so depraved that they are not fit to be associated with those who are sent to a place of detention. When your Lordships have to deal with an increase in the age it is evident you have to deal with quite a different state of things. At the age of sixteen, I am sorry to say, there are a great many young people in this country who are fully matured, they are fully sexed, they have full experience of sex, and I am sorry to say that from time to time they
690
are found to be suffering from venereal disease. That is true of both males and females. Magistrates in the Metropolis are quite familiar with cases in which they have to deal, I am sorry to say, with young prostitutes of the age of sixteen, who have been before the courts on other occasions when they have been bound over.
And there are a great many young men, men in everything except years, sixteen and a-half or sixteen years and nine or ten months, who have committed criminal offence after criminal offence, and been guilty of acts of violence and acts of dishonesty. Your Lordships, in the course of your experience as magistrates, will have come across cases where young people of sixteen, both male and female, have become parents. I am sorry to say it is quite usual in the Criminal Courts to come across cases of girls who have had children even under the age of sixteen, certainly at the age of sixteen, and there are many affiliation cases where the reputed father is of the age of sixteen. Really when you come to think of sending offenders of that kind to a juvenile court it does seem a little grotesque. The object of this Amendment is, therefore, to secure a discretion, first of all to the persons who charge such offenders, and secondly, to the courts that have to deal with them. The first part of the Amendment suggests that it shall be within the discretion of the person charging the offender to bring the offender either before the juvenile court or before the ordinary court of summary jurisdiction. The object of that is to prevent real juvenile offenders from being contaminated by people such as I have mentioned. I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree that nothing could be more demoralising than that innocent children treated as juvenile offenders should be associated with people of the class I have mentioned, who, as far as boys of sixteen and over are concerned, will probably and in fact do pose as young heroes. The first thing, therefore, is to remove the possibility of juveniles associating with such people as I have mentioned.
The next question is how to deal with them. I am sorry to say that in the case of some offenders such as I have mentioned—males, in particular—there is very little advantage to be derived from the lenient treatment which the juvenile courts are expected to award to them. A pious admonition by the chairman of

691
the juvenile court, even if he is assisted by two magistrates sitting one on each side of him, will have no effect whatever on the young people I am talking about, and the suggestion that such people should be sent to an approved school seems to me to be an impossible suggestion when you consider the class of case I am dealing with. They would demoralise any school. The only alternative is sending them to a place of detention and that is not at all the kind of treatment they ought to receive. In cases where you have young persons who are confirmed offenders and have been guilty of serious offences, to my mind the only way of treating them is to send them to prison. That may sound harsh, but those of us who have been engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law know that for years there has been a system of treatment of young people in prison which has been most beneficial. It is sometimes called modified Borstal treatment. Boys of sixteen who are sent to prison associate with other boys. They are segregated and receive treatment by experienced governors and the results of that treatment have been most satisfactory—quite as satisfactory as Borstal, if not more so.
The alternative suggestion is to send these children to Borstal. That involves, first of all, committing them either to a Court of Quarter Sessions or to a Court of Assize. That involves delay, which is the very thing that ought to be avoided if possible. Nothing is more important than to have prompt treatment in these particular cases. There is a further objection that Borstal is an institution which is really intended for young people of a greater age than sixteen, though you can send them at the age of sixteen. Two or three years at Borstal is a treatment which a great many courts would hesitate to inflict. At present you cannot send them to prison unless you find them unruly or so depraved that they are not fit to be set, to a place of detention. Depravity is a very hard word and a great many magistrates would shrink from finding any young person of sixteen, male or female, to be so depraved as to be unfit for a place of detention. In the interests of the juveniles and in the interests of the young people themselves, this would be, I venture to think, a most beneficial reform. I have spoken to a
692
great many Metropolitan magistrates about it, and your Lordships may be quite certain that it would meet with their entire approval. They are very much concerned about this matter. Your Lordships will remember that sixteen is the age at which young people are entitled to receive unemployment pay, and you will remember that sixteen is the age at which they are liable for cruelty to children. It certainly does seem rather remarkable if a young person, either boy or girl, of the age of sixteen years and nine months is charged with gross cruelty to another child, you should still be in the position of having to treat that offender as though he were the child who had been grossly assaulted. The same is true of offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. I need not trouble your Lordships with the many cases in which this matter arises.
This Amendment is not conceived in any feeling of hostility towards the measure. I am not suggesting that the age should not be raised. On the contrary, I welcome the increase of age in a great many eases because, so far as what I may call the welfare provisions of the Bill are concerned, it seems to me likely to work with a great deal of benefit to the young people to whom it applies. But that is not the question here. The question is whether in the case of young people who in the discretion of the magistrate are not fit persons to be sent to a place of detention and are not properly punished by being sent to a place of detention, there ought to be discretion to deal with them in the way I have suggested. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Atkin.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble and learned Lord need not have assured your Lordships that the Amendment which he has brought forward is conceived in no hostility to the measure. None of us who know the noble and learned Lord's record in administering the law can do other than recognise his spirit of helpfulness and none of us can be other than grateful to him for bringing his great experience to assist us in making the best measure we can under the circumstances. The only question which really arises is whether or not the alteration which the

693
noble and learned Lord suggests would improve the measure. First of all let me point out that at whatever age you draw the line there are bound to be some cases which fall outside the ordinary rule and which produce an anomaly. There are young people under sixteen years of age who have all the characteristics which the noble and learned Lord described as occurring in some young people between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. There always will be exceptional cases, and wherever we fix the line we can only try to draw it at such a level as will on balance do the most good.
The raising of the age to seventeen is an alteration which I think the noble and learned Lord himself welcomes. It is based on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee which went so elaborately and so usefully into the whole of this problem. The noble and learned Lord says: "Let us raise the age to seventeen, but let us give a discretion to somebody to decide whether or not any particular offender shall be tried in the juvenile court or in the ordinary court." If I understood him correctly he desired that discretion should be given both to the police who were going to charge the offender and the court who was going to try him. I venture to think that to give that discretion to the police would be to confer upon them a very dangerous power. They are to decide on their own motion whether or not, in the case of any particular person they arrest or charge with a crime, they are to bring him before a juvenile court, applying to him the rules and systems which the juvenile court administers, or whether he is to be treated as an adult and sent to the ordinary courts of the country.
LORD ATKIN: I would like to explain that my Amendment does not do that. He would still be a young person unless the court chose to deal with him as an adult.
VISCOUN HAILSHAM: What the noble and learned Lord says is quite accurate. The court could determine that the juvenile rules should apply if it chose, but as to the suggestion that the police official should select whether or not the juvenile court or another court should try him, the police at present, according to my information, are not organised for exercising such a discretion and would not welcome it. Then there
694
was an alternative suggestion that the court should decide. Now see what that involves. At what stage is the court to decide? If it decides after the case has commenced the risks the noble and learned Lord is afraid of will have been incurred. If it is to decide before the case begins to be heard, on what is it to decide? Is it on the appearance of the prisoner, on the nature of the charge, or on the record of the primmer? The record of the prisoner would probably be the safest guide, but I think it would be unfortunate if, before a person was tried, the court was to examine his record and form a prima facie view whether he was so depraved that he would be unsuited for treatment in a juvenile court. I do not think that is a plan which it would be very safe to adopt or which would work. There is therefore a practical difficulty in the view of the Home Office in accepting the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, and further there are not, in our view, quite the difficulties in dealing with these people which he suggests.
He says that in some cases it is undesirable to deal with these sixteen-year-old criminals under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts and that they ought to be dealt with under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. If the magistrates who are trying a case form that view there is nothing to prevent their sending the person charged—in fact, there is that express provision—to Quarter Sessions where he can be dealt with in the ordinary way. The noble Lord says that the methods of dealing with this sort of criminal are somewhat restricted. Apart altogether from sending them to Quarter Sessions there is the ordinary power of fining, the power of probation, the power of committal to the care of a fit person, the power of committal to an approved school, and the Home Office is organising a plan of dividing up approved schools into those which are dealing with persons who seem likely to benefit from a short period of training and those who may require long-term treatment. There is power in circumstances specified in the Acts of 1908 and 1914 of committal to Borstal institutions and there is in cases which have been mentioned power to commit to prison where persons have been certified as depraved or unruly.

695
The noble and learned Lord said that there are cases in which the best system to adopt is to send a young person to prison and to bring him under what is sometimes called modified Borstal treatment. It is quite true that used to be a way of dealing with criminals, but I am instructed that there was a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in a case reported in the fourteenth volume of Criminal Appeals in which the Court made it clear that this system was irregular, and the Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1927 makes it clear that the modified Borstal system is not now carried out and explains how these cases have to be dealt with. In all these circumstances, although I appreciate, and I say it with all sincerity, the help of the noble and learned Lord and his desire to improve the Bill, the view of the Home Office is that the person between sixteen and seventeen can best be dealt with by the methods suggested in the Bill and that the discretion which he asks should be given to the court or the police is a discretion which is not necessary, which it would not be easy to administer and which might, in some cases, prejudice the fair trial of the prisoner.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: The effect of this subsection and of subsection (4) is to compel local authorities and perhaps the national Exchequer to spend more money in order to provide fresh rooms or buildings where juvenile courts may be held. I am not aware that at present any serious objection has arisen from the practice now maintained, which is either to hold the juvenile court in a building separate from a police court if such is obtainable, or otherwise to clear the ordinary police court and then hold the juvenile court there with nobody present except reporters and the witnesses in the case. I am not aware that any young person or child has been injured in any way by the present procedure. On the contrary I am rather of the opinion that the effect of taking a young person to a court which is a police court is more likely to frighten and put the fear of God into him than to take him to a room somewhere else where, behind a table with a green baize cloth,
696
there is a benevolent old gentleman sitting to read him some kind of a lecture. As we have a great deal before us I do not intend to make long speeches on the few Amendments I wish to move, but I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment because we cannot afford at the present time to go spending money on all these humanitarian ideas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The speech of the noble Lord has no relation to the Amendment which he has moved. His speech has been directed to the next Amendment on the Paper. Subsection (3) of this clause deals with the point that if, in the course of the hearing of a case in a juvenile court, the court should ascertain, or it should come out, that the child is over seventeen years of age they should not be debarred from continuing to hear the case. It would obviously be very unfortunate if a case had to be abandoned; a considerable amount of time would be wasted. This is a reciprocal arrangement; it applies also to the adult courts. If a case comes before an adult court and it is discovered that the person is under seventeen then the adult court may determine the case. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very desirable proceeding. I ask you, therefore, to confirm this subsection.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I interrupt for one moment? I should like to alter my Amendment, and merely move to leave out subsection (4).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is to leave out subsection (3). Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw that Amendment?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Yes, and to move to leave out subsection (4).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the next two Amendments I will put the Amendment as to leave out the words "A juvenile court."
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: By this Amendment the noble Lord raises the question

697
of the building in which the juvenile court shall sit, and if subsection (4), which he proposes to delete, is taken from the Bill, then there would be nothing at all either in law or in the Bill to determine the place in which the juvenile court should sit. The practice has been, ever since the Children Act was passed, to hold the court not on the same day, but it might be held in the police court building, or in a different building or a different room from that in which the ordinary court is held. As I have said, the effect of the Amendment would be to sweep away even that modest requirement of the existing law. I think you will all agree that it is very desirable, as far as possible, that the taint of the ordinary police court should not be associated with the trial of juveniles and young persons.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "A juvenile court shall" and insert "sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held." The noble Earl said: I think perhaps it will save time if I say what I have to say on my. Amendment now. It really has the same object as the Amendment under discussion. I am afraid I was unable to catch all that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said, and therefore I hope he will forgive me if I have not quite grasped his reply. I sincerely regret that this Bill should be introduced at all at the present time, when the country is suffering from a most serious financial crisis. It has, however, received a Second Reading, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is our duty to make it as workable and economical as we possibly can. The Act of 1908, which is stated as the principal Act, has done all that can reasonably be required for young persons, and I do not see what was the necessity for bringing forward this measure now. But I confess we had ample warning that the Bill would be introduced some little time ago, and I must not go back on ancient history.
If you will look at my Amendment you will see that it in no way contravenes the vital principle of the Act of 1908,
698
and I have heard no argument brought forward, in this House or elsewhere, that the Act of 1908 has failed. I think it is most important that young people should not be brought into contact with the ordinary criminal. At the same time I think your Lordships will not deny that it is desirable that in most circumstances the dignity of the court should be brought home to the young at an early age. I confess that in my opinion the weakening of paternal discipline has been responsible for much of the trouble, and I do not think that the result of all the legislative interference and of the labours of Parliament has been very satisfactory.
Let us come back to my Amendment. The Amendment seeks to save the ratepayers any extra expenditure at the present time. I saw a very good suggestion made in a newspaper, I think the Daily Telegraph, the other day, that the children's courts should sit in the evening. At that time the other courts would have adjourned. It would have this additional convenience, that if the courts sat in the evening the father of the child would have returned from work and he would have the pleasing task of escorting his offending offspring to the court, and very likely inflicting his own admonishments on the way. At present the mothers are too much engaged in amusing themselves or doing something else to look after the children, and, as I have said, it is the weakening of paternal discipline which is responsible for much of the trouble. As the Bill reads now the Secretary of State is given the control as to whether a particular place shall be convenient for holding these courts. I want to alter this in such a way that there shall be no question that the county council or borough council, or whatever local authority it may be, will not be given full discretionary powers to decide the matter for themselves.
This Amendment which stands in my name has the approval, after very careful consideration, of the County Councils' Association. In fact, it is their Amendment. I do not want to suggest that the Secretary of State would act otherwise than perfectly judicially, but there might be a difference of opinion whether the accommodation was suitable or not, and of course if the Secretary of State had unlimited powers he would select the

699
room at the expense of the ratepayers. Then, with reference to the interpretation of what is a suitable room, I do not think that previous experience will give us great confidence that the Government Department is always acting in the direction of strict economy. Your Lordships will recollect perfectly well that the chief control by Government Departments with regard to the expenditure of a local authority now is that they have been concerned with Government grants. In this particular case the question of Government grants does not arise at all and Government Departments will not be very economical with regard to the money when it does not come from Government grants, and when the ratepayer and not the taxpayer has to pay. I submit that the Act of 1908 has not failed and that local authorities ought to be given complete discretionary powers to enable them to provide suitable accommodation for hearing these cases without putting the ratepayers to any extra expense.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not desire to express any views of my own but only to ask a question which may give me an indication which way one ought to think on this matter. I am rather puzzled at the moment. A certain noble and learned Lord moved an Amendment and we got a reply from the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House. We gather from him that he looked with equanimity, and was going to continue to look with equanimity, on a state of things in which children between the ages of sixteen and seventeen, girl prostitutes suffering from venereal disease, are to be allowed to mingle in these courts with younger children. At the same time we heard from the noble Viscount sitting on the Front Bench that we must have a special room for these people to meet in. Why? If you are going to allow children, such as we have heard do exist at these ages, to mingle with younger children, why is it necessary to have a separate court for them when that is going to cost more money? How are they going to get any better from it? Is it really going to be said that a child of fourteen or fifteen is going to be less contaminated by a girl, who at the age of sixteen or seventeen is a prostitute suffering from venereal disease, than a boy who has stolen a pair of boots? Is that really put forward?
700
If it is not put forward, some excuse for this extra expense in having special rooms should be made by someone. There may be some reason, but it ought to be given before we vote for such expenditure.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In order to save time and avoid moving my Amendment—[to leave out all words after "proper" in subsection (4) (i)]—may I make one or two remarks on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Banbury? He wishes to leave out subsection (4) altogether. My noble friend Lord Malmesbury wishes to change it very considerably. My Amendment only wishes to leave out paragraph (ii) at the top of page 3 of the Bill. I am perfectly willing to leave a discretion to the Secretary of State as to whether a juvenile court shall sit in a building "mainly or exclusively used as a police station or for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts" or "in a room ordinarily used for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts." I am quite content to leave the discretion as to the use of these various buildings to the Secretary of State, because I have perhaps more confidence in a Government Department than my noble friend Lord Malmesbury.
What I do not wish is that the discretion of the Secretary of State shall be hampered, and if your Lordships will turn to the top of page 3, your Lordships will see that, if the first five lines are left in, his discretion will be very considerably hampered, because it says that he shall not approve the use of any of these buildings mentioned at the bottom of page 2 unless he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide some other suitable room for the use of such courts. Of course, it is always practicable to provide those rooms if one disregards expense, and these is no reference to expense at all in those five lines. In my opinion, if they are left in, the Secretary of State will be obliged in ninety-nine cases out of a 100 to refuse to allow the use of these rooms, even in a small country town where courts sit very seldom and where the expense of providing a separate room or a separate building will mean a substantial increase in the local rates. For these reasons I am suggesting the omission of these five lines as I desire to

701
leave the discretion of the Secretary of State unhampered.
LORD DANESFORT: I think I am entitled to ask for the purposes of this discussion if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is as anxious for economy as the rest of your Lordships. If that is so, I hope that he will accept either the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, or that of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. Undoubtedly, the clause as is stands must throw a very serious expense upon the ratepayers, because it lays upon them the duty of providing new premises, in addition to the existing police courts, for the purpose of these juvenile courts. That cannot be done for nothing and the expense of it may be very serious. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would give us some estimate of what the expense would be. Whether he can or not, the expense must be very serious. Is there any necessity for that expense? We are all agreed that, unless expenditure is absolutely necessary, we should not encourage it. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury meets the case entirely. It might be too drastic to cut out subsection (4) altogether, but the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, said that the juvenile court shall either sit in a different building or room from that in which the sittings of the courts other than juvenile courts are held or on different days or at different times from those.
I do not suppose that the rooms of these police courts are occupied every day or for every moment of the day. In that case the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, provides that the juvenile courts shall be held in those rooms which are not occupied. What conceivable objection is there to that? Are children polluted by going into the police court? I have yet to learn that police courts are such dens of infamy that a child's morals or character are injured by going into them. On the contrary, it will make the children appreciate that their conduct is being enquired into. I urge, therefore, upon the noble Viscount that, if he cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, he should accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, which would not hurt the child, which would avoid this unnecessary expenditure, and which would
702
satisfy a large proportion of the taxpayers. I may add that I have been urged to take this line by a very important county council, the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If the noble Viscount will give me an undertaking that he will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury, I shall withdraw mine. If he cannot give me that undertaking, I shall go to a Division. I have had a letter from the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire which says:
"If this Bill should pass in its present form, it is possible that county councils may be called upon to incur expense unnecessarily in the provision of juvenile courts and other matters."
If the noble Viscount can give me that assurance, I shall withdraw my Amendment at once. If not, I shall go to a Division.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I very much regret that, even to save a Division on the clause now before your Lordships, I cannot give the undertaking for which the noble Lord has asked. It seems to me that a good deal of the support which has been given to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, is due to a misapprehension, and I think that the resolution of the county councils to which reference has been made has been passed under that misapprehension. That misapprehension is that under the Bill the juvenile courts cannot be held in the ordinary police courts. That is not the case. They may be held in such buildings, provided that the Secretary of State agrees. The main argument in favour of the Amendment is that it is going to involve the local authority in enormous expenditure. Well, that, if it is not entirely without foundation, is at least a gross exaggeration. I know that there are many of your Lordships who have not a very high opinion of the Government Departments, especially in the matter of economy, but I really would ask your Lordships to grant that there is a little common sense in the administration of the law and, especially at a time like this, I cannot imagine that the powers that are given to the Secretary of State under the Bill would be used in such a way as to impose additional expense upon the local authority.

703
I was asked if I had any estimate of the cost. I have no estimate, but I am quite sure that the increased expenditure, if there be any increased expenditure at all, will be infinitesimal. As a matter of fact there are certain parts of the country where the juvenile courts are already held away from the ordinary police courts—in London, in Birmingham, and in other large towns. Although I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment, I do want to assure your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government that this provision giving power to the Home Secretary to fix the venue of the court shall be exercised in a wise and economical spirit, and I hope that, with that assurance, your Lordships will let the clause stand.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Will the noble Viscount, before he sits down, in order to save time, deal with my Amendment, so that, if necessary, I shall not have to move it?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: Before I reply to that may I say, in answer to the noble Lord behind me, who asked if there was greater likelihood of contamination in one court than in another from a juvenile being brought into contact with another young person, that I think he misses altogether the purpose of these juvenile courts. The purpose of these juvenile courts is that these children and young persons shall be kept away as far as possible from the ordinary criminal classes, and I think it is the universal opinion of those who have had experience of the work of these courts that they have been eminently satisfactory in that respect. The intention of the words which the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, proposes to leave out is to emphasise the fact which I mentioned just now that there is a greater objection
to holding the juvenile court in the ordinary room of a police court than there is to holding it in another building. That has been generally recognised. For that reason, I think if the noble Lord's Amendment were submitted to your Lordships we should be unable to accept it. But I do want to assure your Lordships, as the question of economy seems to be the paramount consideration in the minds of those who are moving this Amendment, that the expense will be infinitesimal, and that the Home Office will administer the powers given under this clause in an economical spirit, and will refrain from imposing any additional burden upon the local authority unless it is absolutely necessary.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think your Lordships have taken the discussion on the three Amendments together. Therefore what I propose to do is this. In order to save the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury's Amendment, I will put Lord Banbury's Amendment to omit the words up to "A juvenile court" in subsection (4). Then, if your Lordships do not accept it, Lord Malmesbury can move, and, if that is not accepted, then Lord Mount Temple can move.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I think I must move my Amendment because what the noble Viscount said is practically no answer.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I was trying to explain that the noble Lord's Amendment will be put if Lord Malmesbury's Amendment is not carried.
On Question, Whether the words "A juvenile court" shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selborne, E.

Ullswater, V.

Stanhope, E.

Reading, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Southwark, L. Bp.

Salisbury, M.

Allendale, V.

Addington, L.

Bradford, E.

Astor, V.

Arnold, L.

Buxton, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Atkin, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Esher, V.

Bayford, L.

Feversham, E.

Exmouth, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Cawley, L.

Rothes, E.

Mersey, V.

Clwyd, L.

Cranworth, L.

Irwin, L.

St. Levan, L.

Daryngton, L.

Lamington, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denman, L.

Marley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Sempill, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Snell, L.

Greville, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harlech, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hawke, L.

Rhayader, L.

Templemore, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Rochester, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Strafford, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Gainford, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Hereford, V.

Hindlip, L.

Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Aberdare, L.

Lawrence, L.

Halsbury, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.[Teller.]

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Monkswell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Mount Temple, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Newton, L.

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Danesfort, L.

Remnant, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darling, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Midleton, E.

de Clifford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Morton, E.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L.

Munster, E.

Doverdale, L.

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment rejected accordingly.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY rose to move, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "A juvenile court shall," and insert "sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held." The noble Earl said: I am sorry to put your Lordships to the trouble of another Division so soon, but I am afraid I must move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save Lord Mount Temple's Amendment, I will put the question to your Lordships that the words down to "proper" in line 41 stand part of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to "proper" in paragraph (i).—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
On Question, Whether the words from "A juvenile court shall" down to "proper" in subsection (4) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS.

Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Astor, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Mersey, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Buxton, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Rhayader, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Sanderson, L.

Morton, E.

Cawley, L.

Snell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Denman, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Feversham, E.

Selborne, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strafford, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Lindsay, E.

Salisbury, M.

Macclesfield, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Bradford, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Munster, E.

Exmouth, V.

Rothes, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hereford, V.

Daryngton, L.

Lamington, L.

Sumner, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ullswater, V.

Deramore, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Doverdale, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Aberdare, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Monkswell, L.

Addington, L.

Faringdon, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.[Teller.]

Forester, L.

Newton, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bayford, L.

Greville, L.

Remnant, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

St. Levan, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Harlech, L.

Sempill, L.

Hawke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Conway of Allington, L.

Hindlip, L.

Strachie, L.

Cranworth, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wharton, L.

Danesfort, L.

Irwin, L.

Wynford, L.

Darling, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment to omit all words after "A juvenile court shall" down to "proper" agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, will put the rest of his Amendment it is exactly the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I do not move my Amendment.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to leave out the words from "and" to the end of the subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("and") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after ("A juvenile court shall") insert ("sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held.")—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Constitution of juvenile courts in Metropolitan police court area.
(2) Every juvenile court in the Metropolitan police court area shall be constituted of a Metropolitan police magistrate nominated by the Secretary of State to act as chairman of juvenile courts within the said area and two justices of the peace for the county of London, one of whom shall be a woman, and both of whom shall be selected, in such manner as may be directed by Order in Council, from a panel of such justices nominated from time to time by the Secretary of State:
Provided that—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "one of whom shall be a woman, and." The noble Lord said: As the clause stands the Secretary of State has to nominate somebody to act as chairman of the juvenile court and two magistrates, and it is provided that in the County of London one of them shall be a woman. I do not see any point in putting in those words. If they are left out both the justices may be women. If they are left in the Secretary of State will have to appoint a woman even if there is no suitable woman. It does not seem to me that because a magistrate is a woman she is necessarily competent to act in this capacity. It would be far better to leave it open to the Secretary of State to appoint two women if he likes and if he can find two women who are competent. To put in a provision which compels him to appoint a woman when he cannot find one who is competent seems to me absurd. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("London") to ("both").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The provision in the clause which the noble Lord seeks to amend is already in the Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Act, 1920. I welcome the anxiety of the noble Lord to have the courts constituted entirely of women if suitable women can be found, but the practice under the Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Act has worked extremely well and this subsection incorporates it in the present Bill. The reason why the principle is not extended to the juvenile courts in the provinces is that in a great many cases it may be im-

709
possible to find a woman who is considered to be suitable for the work. The Amendment of the noble Lord is not, I admit, a very material one, but I think it is very desirable that the words should be kept in the Bill and the practice which already exists maintained.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think that because there is a precedent for doing some foolish thing it is necessary to go on doing that foolish thing. However, it is not a very important Amendment and I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Provisions with respect to remands and bail.
7.—(1) When a juvenile court has remanded a child or young person for the purpose of considering the manner in which he shall be dealt with, a juvenile court acting for the same petty sessional division or place may in his absence extend the period for which he is remanded, so, however, that he appears before a court or a justice at least once in every twenty-one days.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) When a juvenile court have remanded a child or young person for information to be obtained with respect to him, any juvenile court acting for the same petty sessional division or place—

(a) may in his absence extend the period for which he is remanded, so, however. that he appears before a court or a justice at least once in every twenty-one days;

(b) when the required information has been obtained, may deal with him finally;

and where the court by whom he was originally remanded have recorded a finding that he is guilty of an offence charged against him, it shall not be necessary for any court who subsequently deal with him under this subsection to hear evidence as to the commission of that offence except in so far as they may consider that such evidence will assist them in determining the manner in which he should be dealt with."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is a rather long one, but I can assure your Lordships that it does not make any material alteration in the Bill. It does not in any way alter the powers that are conferred upon the courts under Clause 7 of this Bill. It has really been drafted for the purpose of making the
710
subsection a little more intelligible and removing any ambiguity that may exist.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Snowden.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Powers of juvenile court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.
9.—(1) Any local authority, or any constable and any authorised person (as defined in this section) who have or has reasonable grounds for believing that a child or young person comes within any of the descriptions hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:—

(ii) a child or young person—

(iii) a child in respect of whom an offence has been committed under Section one hundred and eighteen of the principal Act (which relates to the punishment of vagrants preventing children receiving education),

may bring that child or young person before a juvenile court, and the court, if satisfied that the child or young person comes within any of the descriptions above mentioned, may either—
(b) commit him to the care of any fit person, whether a relative or not, who is willing to undertake the care of him, or
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The three Amendments to this clause standing in my name are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 14, leave ("or")
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("or
(d) who, being a female, is a member of the same household as a female in respect of whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, has been committed by a member of that household,").—(Viscount Snowden.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "whether a relative or not." The noble Viscount said: If you look at this clause you will see that the court may commit a child to the care of any fit person whether a relative or not. On the face

711
of it these words seem quite superfluous and I propose that they should be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, leave out from ("person") to ("who") in line 12.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: As the noble Viscount has suggested this is really a question of the construction of the clause. I have no very serious objection to the Amendment, but on the whole my advisers think it would be much better to keep the words as they appear in the Bill. It is not a very material matter and I suggest that the noble Viscount should not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have no desire to press the Amendment, but the noble Viscount has given no reason against it except that his advisers do not like it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: Which should be good enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"Provided that no order shall be made to send a juvenile to an approved school unless his character is such that he requires exceptional control or discipline."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent beyond doubt a neglected child or one found wandering without committing any offence being sent to an approved school where he or she will be brought into contact with possibly vicious children. It is an Amendment actually drafted by a stipendiary magistrate of very great experience and I hope the noble Viscount will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The noble Viscount has not said very much in support of his Amendment, but it is, as indicated, to ensure that no child or young person brought before a juvenile court on the ground of neglect shall be sent to an approved school unless his character is such that he requires exceptional control or discipline. In the Second Reading debate the noble Viscount raised a point which, I think, was similar to that embodied in the Amendment now before the
712
House. The present proposal seems to proceed from the mistaken view that these schools are largely penal settlements. The noble Viscount and your Lordships generally will remember that under the Bill there is power given to the Home Secretary as it were to alter or to adapt the approved schools to the special needs of children who may be committed to them, and I think that power ought largely to meet the object of the noble Viscount. We all sympathise with his point that children who have not yet become gravely contaminated or inured to wrong doing should not be brought into contact with others who might have a had influence upon them, but I think that danger is largely obviated by the classification of these approved schools which will be undertaken by the Home Office.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OS THAME: Although I did not catch every word that fell from the noble Viscount I did catch one or two phrases which make me think that my Amendment may not be necessary, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power of parent or guardian to bring child or young person before juvenile court.
10.—(1) Where the parent or guardian of a child or young person proves to a juvenile court that he is unable to control the child or young person, the court, if satisfied—

(i) that it is expedient so to deal with the child or young person, and

(ii) that the parent or guardian understands the results which will follow from and consents to the making of the order,

may order the child or young person to be sent to an approved school, or may order him to be placed for a specified period, not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court:
Provided that an order that the child or young person be sent to an approved school shall not be made unless the local authority within whose area he is residing agrees.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The Amendment standing in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, leave out ("residing") and insert ("resident").—(Viscount Snowden.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 10. The noble Lord said: I do not know what the noble Viscount will say to this, but it seems to me that this is an unnecessary clause, and that it seems to relieve a parent or guardian of his duty. It is the duty of a parent or guardian to look after his children, not to go to a court and say: "I am sorry, this child is uncontrollable and if somebody else will take charge of it and save me the trouble and expense of doing so I shall be pleased." That is the effect of this clause which seems to me to be both unnecessary and calculated to destroy family life. It is apparently the desire—I was going, to say of the Government, but at any rate of some members of the Government to substitute the State for the parent and that seems to me to be utterly wrong. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD DANESFORT: Before the noble Viscount replies may I ask him whether it would not be well to insert in the clause some words to guard against the evil to which Lord Banbury of Southam has referred—namely, the case of a parent who through idleness, neglect of duty, or otherwise does not discharge his parental responsibilities to a child and gets the child sent to an approved school, thereby avoiding a great deal of trouble and expense and, what is worse, succeeding in evading his parental duty? I am sorry to say that there are cases now where parental duty is evaded. The State does so much for the child that some parents think the State ought to do practically everything, and any additional incentive to avoid or evade that which is the parent's duty is to be gravely disapproved of. Perhaps if the noble Viscount cannot eliminate the clause he will consider guarding more carefully against such evils.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I ask one question? It does not seem to me unreasonable that if the parent cannot control his child and the child is a danger to the community the State should step in, but on the other hand I appreciate fully the point of Lord Banbury of Southam that a parent should not be able to get rid of an obligation in this rather easy way. Could the noble
714
Viscount tell us whether there are provisions in the Bill under which, if Clause 10 is put into operation, the parent can be obliged to give some money towards the weekly upkeep of the child?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: This innocent-looking proposal of the noble Lord is a very far-reaching one and if accepted would have very serious consequences upon the whole structure of the Bill. As a matter of fact the clause proposes no new powers. Under corresponding provisions of the existing law about 100 children are sent every year to these approved schools. I gather from what has been said that noble Lords have great concern as to the evasion of parental responsibility. I agree with what Lord Mount Temple has said that if a parent cannot control his child and the child becomes a danger to the community and a danger to other children, it is the duty of the State to take action. The noble Lord has asked me a question regarding the contributions that would be made by parents on account of children who are sent to an approved school. I ought to mention that if the court wishes to send a child to an approved school it can only do so with the approval of the local authority, and that might be regarded as a safeguard by those members of this House, consisting, suppose, of all of us, who are anxious to practise economy at the present time. If a child is sent to an approved school it is open to the court to make an order that the parents should make a contribution. With that explanation I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.
LORD ATKIN: Is the noble Viscount correct in saying that this power already exists? I see that under Section 58 of the Children Act, 1908, where the parent or guardian of a child is unable to control it, provisions such as are in Clause 10 of this Bill come into force. Clause 10 of this Bill seems to add "young persons." I do not think that such powers as to young persons are in the Act of 1908.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: Of course I should never hesitate to bow to a legal opinion given by the noble Lord, but my advice is that in Section 58, subsection (4), of the Children Act, 1908, these provisions are contained, and that they are re-enacted in Clause 10 of this Bill without any alteration of substance.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am afraid I did not catch what the noble and learned Lord said, but I gather that he says that these powers are already in existence in the Act of 1908.
LORD ATKIN: I did not express an opinion to begin with, but I asked a question, and I asked whether it was correct to say that these powers are to the full extent in the Act of 1908. The Act of 1908 draws a distinction between a child and a young person, and it appears to me that these powers were limited to a child not being under control. Now Clause 10 of this Bill extends the powers to young persons. I do not say that there is any objection to it.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: Of course I think the noble Lord is right. The Children Act, 1908, did not deal with young persons. Therefore it applied only to children who came within the definition of the Act of 1908, and its extension to all who are included in this new Bill is of course a natural corollary.
LORD ATKIN: With great respect, the Children Act drew a complete distinction between children and young persons, and in this particular respect only made provision for a child.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that although there is a clause later on which empowers the magistrates to make a charge upon the parent for the maintenance of the child, that clause merely enacts that the magistrates shall make an order provided they are satisfied the parent has the means. The magistrates may say: "After all, the parent has only got 35s. per week, and that is not too much for him to live upon." The clause only says that if the magistrates make an order and the person does not comply with it the same thing takes place as in the case of an affiliation order: That means that the magistrates may send the man or woman to prison, and that wipes out the debt. So it is not a very stringent provision. However, under the circumstances, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he would consider on the Report stage the introduction of some words limiting this proposal? In that case I would withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I am prepared to consider the matter.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Effect of supervision order.
13.—(1) Where a court makes an order under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act placing a child or young person under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person, that officer or person shall, while the order remains in force, visit, advise and befriend him and, when necessary, endeavour to find him suitable employment and may, if it appears necessary in his interests so to do, at any time while the order remains in force, and he is under the age of seventeen, bring him before a juvenile court, and that court may, if they think that it is desirable in his interests so to do, order him to be sent to an approved school or commit him to the care of a fit person, whether a relative or not, who is willing to undertake the care of him.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "while the order remains in force, visit, advise and befriend him and, when necessary, endeavour to find him suitable employment," and insert "implement the order of the court while such order remains in force." The noble Earl said: My object in moving this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill, if it is to set out to define the objects of a supervision order, shall do so accurately. This clause is intended to define the duties of a probation officer or other person towards those neglected and uncontrollable children put under his or her supervision. If I interpret this clause rightly, I take it that it applies equally to Clause 10, which deals with the uncontrollable child or young person, as to Clause 9, which deals principally with children and young persons in need of care and protection. Although children and young persons out of control under Clause 10 may not have committed an actual offence, they need as much discipline and supervision as a child who may have committed an offence, and I particularly wish to see that the supervision of such uncontrollable children should not be regarded sentimentally or too lightly, and that the probation officer or other fit person should be put in a position of doing more than "advising, visiting and befriending," by enforcing any provision which the court may make in a supervision order.
Supervision orders will be framed by the courts to fit the particular case with the intention of controlling such misconduct as defying parents, truancy, being abusive in the home, and, if the offenders are over school age and in employment, refusing to work, and wasting earnings in such places as billiard saloons. The present phrasing of this clause conveys an impression that the probation officer is only to act as a kindly friend to such uncontrollable young persons, and it defines his duties in too sentimental a manner. The phrase that I wish to delete is already embodied in the Statutory Probation Regulations, 1926, where, however, it only stands as one of many duties that a probation officer has to perform, and it would appear to be unnecessary and redundant to repeat a portion of those statutory regulations in this Act. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent supervision orders from losing their disciplinary effect. I do not think your Lordships will consider this Amendment contentious, for it merely more accurately states the duties of a probation officer in effecting a supervision order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to ("and") in line 29 and insert ("implement the order of the court while such order remains in force").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Amendment seeks to omit from the clause the words "visit, advise and befriend him and, when necessary, endeavour to find him suitable employment." Those words specify the duties of the probation officers or other officers appointed by the court to look after neglected children. The Amendment proposes to substitute only die words "implement the order of the court while such order remains in force." The object of these words is to specify the duties of the probation officer or other appointed person. The duties of the probation officer in relation to probation orders are already defined by Statute under the Probation of Offenders Act and the words which this Amendment seeks to delete are taken from that statutory definition.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand that, if the probation officer or other fit person is to take charge of neglected children, what applies under
718
the Statutory Regulations of 1926 as to the duties of the probation officer will apply to the probation officer's supervision of such neglected children under Clauses 9 and 10.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid I did not quite follow what the noble Earl wanted to know.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to know if, under Clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill, the probation officer or other fit person, who is to take charge of the supervision of those offenders, either out of control or neglected or in need of care and protection, and has to supervise such children, will be governed by the Statutory Regulations of 1926, which state the duties of the probation officer?
THE EARL or LUCAN: I am not familiar with the regulations to which the noble Earl refers. I can only say what I said before, that the duties of probation officers in relation to probation orders are already defined by the Statute to which I have referred.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I have in my possession here the Statutory Regulations of 1926, to which I referred, and which state on page 6 the duties of a probation officer in these terms:
"The probation officer shall, subject to any directions given by the court or the probation committee, visit the home of a probationer and make inquiries as to his behaviour … The probation officer shall ascertain that a probationer understands the conditions of his recognisance and shall endeavour to ensure his observance of them … If the probationer fails to comply with any of the conditions, the probation officer shall report as hereinafter directed."
If a supervision order is entrusted to a probation officer, I gather that such regulations will be made as are made for probation orders and that the duties of a probation officer under supervision orders will be similar to the duties under probation orders.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only tell the noble Earl again that the Act which I have quoted is the Probation of Offenders Act, 1927. I must find out more about these regulations of 1926. I shall do so before the further stages of the Bill and I can only tell him that this provision has been drafted from the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, and, therefore, I am afraid I cannot satisfy

719
him as to these other matters. If the noble Earl will not press his Amendment now and will put it down at a further stage, I shall get all the necessary information.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I thank the noble Earl and, in view of his undertaking to consider my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to
Clause 14:
Removal or remand of child or young person to place of safety.
14.—(1) A constable, or any person authorised by any court or by any justice, may take to a place of safety any child or young person in respect of whom any offence under Part II of the principal Act, or any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to that Act, has been or is believed to have been committed, or who is about to be brought before a juvenile court in accordance with any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and a child or young person so taken to a place of safety, and any child or young person who has taken refuge in a place of safety, may be detained there until he can be brought before a juvenile court.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for the first "may." The noble Viscount said: I raised this point on Second Reading when I asked the noble Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, to prevent a child, who had been found guilty of no crime but who had simply been found wandering and neglected, from being taken to a police station and its name entered on the charge sheet. In reply the noble Viscount said:
"In regard to arrest and taking children to the police station, under Clause 14 of the Bill the constable who takes charge of the child can convey the child to any place of safety, not necessarily to the police court."
I want to put it beyond all doubt that a child, who has committed no crime but who has been found wandering, shall not be taken to a police station, and I suggest that it should be obligatory on the police constable to take the child to a place of safety and not to a police, station. That could be effected by leaving out the word "may" and inserting the word "shall."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8 leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Ths Amendment of the noble Viscount would make it obligatory for the child or young person to be taken to a place of safety if it has been the victim of an offence. I would point out to the noble Viscount that such a child, that is a Poor Law child, would in most cases be in a Poor Law institution.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not if he were found wandering or neglected.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The great majority of these children are not taken into custody at all before being brought before the court. In most of the neglect cases under Clause 9 there will be no necessity whatever to remove the child from his home to a place of safety before he comes to the court. Clause 14 is designed to meet those cases in which the child would be in actual danger, such as of further assault, if he were not removed at once from his home. It would be quite undesirable to require, as the present Amendment proposes, that every child to be dealt with under Clause 9 should be taken to a place of safety before being brought to the court. The practice of charging children at police stations, to which the noble Viscount referred in his speech on Second Reading, is open to great objection. Under the terms of the Bill it will be the policy of the Home Office to bring this practice to an end. I understand that the present Amendment will not prevent the practice to which the noble Viscount objects and it must be left to administrative methods to give effect to the suggestion which he made on Second Reading. I hope the noble Viscount will take that as an answer and will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Again, I am afraid that I imperfectly heard the reply. I shall withdraw the Amendment now for the purpose of considering the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT and, if I think it advisable, bringing the matter up again on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendments as to summary trial of children for indictable offences.
(2) A court of summary jurisdiction which deals summarily with a child in respect of an indictable offence shall, in addition to

721
any other powers exercisable by virtue of this or any other Act, have power to impose a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (2):
"and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to he, as soon as practicable, privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child."
The noble Viscount said: On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Viscount expressed a good deal of satisfaction—a satisfaction which if do not believe was shared by many of your Lordships—that whipping as a form of punishment is abolished under the provisions of this Bill. Owing to the intricacies of the Bill it has been somewhat difficult to discover how this has been effected, but after careful scrutiny I have come to the conclusion that the method adopted has been by the total repeal of Section 10 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which is repealed by this clause and by certain parts of the Schedules to which I have consequential Amendments. The effect of the Amendment under discussion, if accepted by your Lordships, will be to leave the repeal of Section 10 untouched except with regard to whipping. The words I propose to insert are taken from that very Section 10 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the Young Offenders Committee unanimously recommended that this form of punishment should be retained, and, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I am going again to quote from page 69 of that Report. It says:
"If, as we recommend, whipping is retained, we see no reason why it should be limited to certain offences. Cruelty to animals or wanton acts endangering the lives of others ought not to be excluded."
It seems evident from the wording of that Report that it was present to the minds of the Commitee that there was opposition to the retention of whipping. I have tried to obtain a copy of the evidence that was given before the Young Offenders Committee, but I am informed that the Home Office have the only copy in existence. But please bear in mind that, if there was all this opposition,
722
evidence must have been, or at least should have been, tendered before the Committee on that subject. I cannot conceive that such evidence was not given; but, although there were on the Committee a representative of the Home Office, Mr. Sydney Harris, and three ladies—who, one can presume, are not of a hard or callous nature—they recommend without any dissent and in face of any evidence that whipping is the discredited punishment that the Lord Privy Seal says it is, not only its retention but its extension to cases of wantonly endangering the lives of others and to cases of cruelty to animals. I believe my Amendment carries out their recommendation.
There was a horrible case of cruelty reported recently in The Times. The report says:
"Five schoolboys, whose ages ranged from 12 to 14 years, were remanded at Tottenham yesterday on a charge of killing and maiming 20 sheep. The sheep were in a pen at Tottenham Hale Station, and it was alleged that the boys struck the sheep down with pieces of iron. When the police arrived twelve were found to be dead, three were dying, and five were injured. The sheep found alive were immediately slaughtered."
Could anything be worse than that? And is it not a very good ease for punishment by whipping?
Now, here is a correspondent who is a worker among the poor, who says in a letter to me:
"As has been pointed out, under the new arrangements there will be no punishment between 'binding over' and sending to a school, which means in practice that all youthful misdemeanour which is not sufficiently serious to warrant sending away, will in future go unpunished."
He says that the results of "binding over" are an increase in juvenile crime and great want of respect for the law. He says:
"I have known case after case here in London, where boys have returned from being charged in the police court or juvenile court with a laugh on their faces to say that they have been 'bound over'—which obviously meant to them no punishment at all."
An idea that is held widely now among working-class boys, according to this correspondent, is that it is quite safe to commit offences until they are found out, as they are never punished for any but serious crime the first time.
He goes on to say:
"Whipping in schools by masters is not considered wrong, but whipping by a police constable is considered to be unpleasant to the constable and to be an insult to the boy. I come in contact with many constables owing to my work, and I have never heard of one who had any objection to this duty. When ordered to carry out a magistrate's order to whip a boy, all the policemen whom I have known look upon the job as just part of their duty; and have no particular feeling on the matter. What I have heard many times is policemen complaining that, after they have arrested a boy for some fairly serious offence, he has been 'bound over' and has practically had the laugh of them.
"Then from the boys' point of view. Mr. Stanley"—
and I suppose he would include the noble Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal—
"does not know the working-class boys. The police constable is the monitor and source of all authority to the working-class child. And the one thing that such a child does expect a constable to do—if he is caught—is to whip them."
My noble friend Lord Glasgow unfortunately cannot be here to-day, but your Lordships may remember that in the Second Reading debate he said:
"I gather that under the provisions of this Bill a boy under seventeen can be sent to prison. If that is so then I think it is important to remember that certain overseas countries refuse to take lads who wish to emigrate if they have been to prison in this country. It seems to me therefore that whipping would be a better thing for a boy than being sent to a prison."
I understand from the noble Earl that the overseas countries have no objection to taking boys who have been whipped and have not been to prison. Although I know that it is useless to ask the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment, yet I do suggest that there should be a free vote on the matter. Let him not deny to your Lordships a thing so dear to himself as a free vote. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Viscount is quite correct in what he says in reference to Section 10 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, the provisions of which in this respect he proposes to restore. This is a very arguable question, as we know. The question of corporal punishment has been discussed ever since I can remember, but corporal punishment has gradually been done
724
away with more and more. The noble Viscount is quite right also in what he says about the Report of the Young Offenders' Committee, of which he says there is only one copy of the evidence. I could have lent him one. He is quite right in what he says about their findings in that Report. There was a majority in favour.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It was unanimous in the Report.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think there were three against, but it was decided in drawing up this Bill, by whoever was responsible for it, not to put in the clause which the noble Viscount proposes but to drop it altogether. I understand they were guided by the way in which the punishment of whipping has decreased—policy court whipping I mean—in recent years. I can tell the noble Viscount that in the year 1913 there were 2,079 children sentenced to whipping. In 1927 there were 230, and in 1930 there were only 130. It looks as if the authorities who administer the punishment of whipping had begun to think it was not so efficacious a way of checking crime as the noble Viscount seems to be convinced it is. That is all the information I can give the noble Viscount. I am afraid the Government cannot accept his Amendment. This proposal met with very little criticism in the House of Commons. During the debate on Second Reading there was no unfavourable comment, and during the Committee stage an Amendment was moved, but of nine speeches then made only two were in favour of the Amendment, and the Amendment was negatived without a Division. I would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope my noble friend will not withdraw. I would ask my noble friend Lord Lucan whether he can explain how it is that with the diminution of whipping crimes have increased?
LORD DANESFORT: From the days of Solomon downwards continuously throughout the ages, whipping has been recognised as a proper punishment for offending children, and have we arrived at a state of enlightenment when we are to throw away the whole traditions of past ages and say children are too delicate and tender to be submitted to this

725
form of correction? Some of the police court cases, and notably cases of cruelty, prove to my mind that suitable, not savage but moderate chastisement will probably appeal more to a child of that type than any other form of correction. Certainly it will appeal far more than being bound over, at which he laughs. I know that many of the public schools still retain that form of correction, and, consequently, I should not be wrong in assuming that some noble Lords at early stages of their career have had that experience, which has no doubt produced the valuable results that are generally thought to follow from it. I remember the late Lord Curzon on one occasion—it was in a private conversation it is true—rather prided himself on the fact that he had been repeatedly corrected in that particular way, and, although he did not say so in terms, evidently it was in his mind that the eminence which he subsequently attained was in part at any rate due to that early correction.
I do think that this effeminate, over-humanitarian, ultra-sentimental view that to correct a child by reasonable correction is something which is out of date, which is wrong, and which offends the minds of proper thinking people, is a view which we cannot and ought not to adopt. In view of the recommendations of the Committee who sat on this subject and heard the whole of the evidence and came to the conclusion which the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has referred to, I do hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden will not run in the face of Holy Writ in this matter, and that he will pay more attention to the sound advice which the wisdom of the ancients dictated, and especially the advice which that great man with legal experience, and with experience also in the number of his wives and children, gave. I trust the noble Viscount will take due note of that advice.
LORD ATKIN: May I ask the Committee to consider what is the proper punishment in a case where children under fourteen have been guilty of acts of cruelty, first of all to an animal, because we are only dealing with the whipping of children under fourteen and not with the flogging of children over that age and of young persons? What is the proper punishment for a maliciously-minded boy or girl who brutally illtreats a small child of seven or eight? What
726
is the proper punishment for a group of mischievous boys who put a sleeper upon a main line and endanger the lives of hundreds of passengers? That is the case that the Committee had in mind—malicious injury calculated to result in loss of life. What is the good of ordering such children as that a period of detention, or, still more, of sending them to an approved school? The right punishment for such children—of that we may not be in the least afraid—is something short and sharp, the punishment which children of that kind would be or ought to be given in their own homes. I suggest no harm will be done if this Amendment is accepted.
VISCOUNT EXMOUTH: May I on this point relate to your Lordships a personal experience, which will illustrate the problem that has to be dealt with by the people who are to take charge of the children in these approved schools? Once in my life I had to take personal charge of a small country reform school. I was responsible for some three years for the life, health and training of from thirty to nearly seventy delinquent boys between the ages of twelve and seventeen. I innocently accepted the position of trustee of the school and, as soon as it appeared that I was interested in the work, I was elected president "just for a few months to tide over an emergency!" A fortnight later, when starting on my vacation (I had been for a few years on the teaching staff of my University), I was recalled by the news that a lad had been drowned there, owing, as I soon found, to the gross cowardice and inefficiency of one of the staff. Conditions there were so bad that almost anything might happen; and to save my own "face" I had to settle down there, as a sort of dictator, and run the whole place myself, gradually getting rid of almost all the old staff until, when college opened again, I could leave it in the hands of my new organization and visit it only a few times in the year.
The work there was very hard. The responsibility was great and the problems encountered were endless. The boys were of all sorts and kinds—rich and poor—the son of a coloured laundress next to the grandson of a high Government official. They had but one trait in common—they had all behaved so badly that they could not be tolerated either at home or at school and had been bound

727
over to us, in place of a Government reformatory. It is a hard job to have charge of thirty or forty of these boys. To handle 500 or 600 is a job for a very big man, if it is to be done well. Most of my boys were wild as hawks, and what little order had been kept among them had been by the aid of prayer and of whipping—any amount of prayer and a good deal of whipping. When a boy had been particularly bad they first thrashed the life out of him, and then, before the discomfort had worn off, he was taken down into the office of the superintendent—an old broken-down clergyman—who prayed over him. The boys hated the praying more than they did the whipping. They thought that was unfair.
The most important question was how to make these boys obey. Until they learnt to do that, it was impossible to do anything with them. Here we found immense help in military discipline. We put them into military uniforms, and all of us in authority wore the clothes and badges of officers. It was, then, no disgrace for the wildest lad to obey the word of command of his captain or even his sergeant. In fact, he was disgraced if he did not. They were drilled hard, and our dress parades on Sundays and holidays were taken very seriously and were not at all had. As for discipline, we enforced it in every way we could think of, without making martyrs of the culprits. Extra turns on the kitchen police; details on guard when the rest were at a hall game or camping out; these and similar punishments met almost every need. As for whipping, we decided to leave that for specially important cases and not to have it as an ordinary punishment at all. The idea was to keep it in the background, ready to appear, however, when called for. We told them: "Now, nobody wants to hurt you, but certain things must not be done and, if you are such fools as to do them, you will surely get hurt." And they were quite clever enough, when they found that we were in earnest, not to do them.
As I remember it we only whipped boys twice while I was in charge. The first time was when a bright active lad was caught, one night, smuggling in tobacco from some friends who had brought it down from the city. To these youngsters tobacco is almost as poisonous as opium to a European, and we had placed a rigid embargo on it. This boy, I think, was
728
doing this more out of bravado than anything else; but he was fairly caught, with his pockets crammed with cigarettes, and was duly whipped. Then I told him plainly, "Look here, you've not been playing fair. If you want to smoke and ruin your wind, and spoil your health, and lose your place in the football team, that's a pretty poor thing to do, and you'll suffer for it without our having to punish you. But for you to bring in all this tobacco, to spoil the health of a lot of these young slackers that we are trying to make men of—that's a mean trick and well worth a good licking." And he straightened up and said: "I am sorry. I won't do it again." And he kept his word. And more than that, there was mighty little, if any, tobacco smoked in that, place from that time on.
Our work at last was running smoothly when suddenly, a stiff letter reached us from the State Board of Charities and Corrections, who were in control of the prisons, reformatories, etc., as well as the hospitals, nursing homes and the like, in that part of the country. We were told that the Board had unanimously passed a resolution prohibiting the employment of corporal punishment in any institution under their charge. We had no wish to antagonise our superior officers, so I wrote to their secretary, and arranged to talk over the matter with them at their next meeting. When we met, I explained that there were certain offences in our work that must be stopped and, if possible, stopped permanently; that the only way that I knew by which they could be stopped was by whipping—a form of corporal punishment. So I asked them, as they had forbidden corporal punishment, to tell me what form of punishment I should use. One of them said: "Put them on dry bread and water for a few days, that will bring them to terms." But that would hardly do, I pointed out. It would make the boy a martyr and every youngster in the place would be working, night and day, to smuggle food in to him. I should have to build a regular prison for him of stone or brick well away from our big, dry, wooden buildings, and have a trustworthy guard. And even at that, our boys were quite capable of starting a big bonfire close by in the hope that an alarm of fire would cause his release.
The next old gentleman suggested heavy pack drill for an hour or two in the

729
hot sun, with a big old Army musket on the shoulder. But he did not explain what should be done if the "criminal" threw the musket on the ground, within five minutes, and refused to touch it again. Then came a splendid suggestion. "It never failed to bring a youngster to terms! Lock him up in an upstairs room, with hot sun blazing in all day and no shades, and at night arrange that a strong light shine in and prevent his sleeping!" This, in my mind, savoured too much of one of the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition and I hinted as much quite strongly, upon which the Board told me to keep order any way I chose, only I was not to use any corporal punishment. As a matter of fact, I did have trouble with one very unpleasant character, about a year after. He was fairly tried and sentenced to be well punished. He was well whipped and then formally drummed
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
out of camp as unfit to associate with a decent lot of boys as ours were. His uniform was taken off, and in a rough suit of "cits" he was put on the train and shipped home. And the boys went round on tiptoe, for weeks, whenever his name or offence were mentioned.
I assure your Lordships that you will not be able to run these "approved" schools properly unless you have some kind of punishment. And I feel that if both Houses of Parliament rule that whipping as a punishment disgraces a boy, is discredited and should be abolished, it will be a very serious matter and a grave danger to the future welfare of the younger generation.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Wellington, D.

Hereford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Forester, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Greville, L.

Salisbury, M.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Harlech, L.

Bradford, E.

Hawke, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Addington, L.

Hindlip, L.

Alvingham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lindsay, E.

Atkin, L.

Irwin, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lawrence, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bayford, L.

Lloyd, L.

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Marley, L.

Morton, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Munster, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. ClanWilliam.)

Mount Temple, L.

Peel, E.

Newton, L.

Rothes, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Selborne, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Cranworth, L.

Sempill, L.

Astor, V.

Danesfort, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Deramore, L.

Teynham, L.

Exmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Snowden, V.(L. Privy Seal.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hailsham, V.

Rhayader, L.

De La Warr, E.

Rochester, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Arnold, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Snell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gainford, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Templemore, L.

Allendale, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Clause 18 [Power of any court to remit juvenile offender to a juvenile court]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move what is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Notice to local authority of charges against and applications relating to children and young persons.
(2) A local authority who have received a notification under the last preceding subsection, and a local or poor law authority who themselves charge any child or young person with any offence, or being any child or young person before a juvenile court as needing care or protection shall, except in cases which appear to them to be of a trivial nature, make such investigations and render available to the court such information as to the home surroundings, school record, health and character of the child or young person and, in proper cases, as to available approved schools as appear to them to be likely to assist the court. Provided that a local authority shall be under no obligation to make investigations as to the home surroundings of children or young persons in any petty sessional division in which by direction of the justices or probation committee arrangements have been made for such investigations to be made by a probation officer.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The two Amendments on this clause standing in my name are merely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("resides") and insert ("is resident").
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("resides") and insert ("is resident").—(Viscount Snowden.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) (i) A local authority who have received a notification under paragraph (ii) of the last preceding subsection, shall supply, either direct to the court or through the probation officer who has received a similar notification, a report of such information as they have at the time of such notification in their possession, regarding the home surroundings school record, health and character of the child or young person, and in proper cases as to available approved schools, as appear to them likely to assist the court, and such further information as the court may require and direct them to obtain.
732
(ii) A probation officer who has received a notification under paragraph (i) of the last preceding subsection shall make such further investigation and supply such additional information regarding the home surroundings, school record, health and character of the child or young person as the court may require and direct.''
The noble Earl said: In proposing this Amendment it is necessary to stress briefly the importance of preliminary investigation before a child, whether an offender or a person in need of care and protection, comes before the court. Information obtained by these investigations enables a court to arrive at a logical and intelligent decision as to how they shall treat the young delinquent—whether he shall be fined, committed to an approved school, or placed on probation. According to the criminal statistics one-third of the cases in juvenile courts are placed on probation. The efficiency of preliminary investigations largely governs the success or failure of such offenders, for it ensures that only the right sort of boy or girl is to be put under the supervision of a probation officer or some other fit person. It is essential that the probation officer should investigate those cases for which he is afterwards to be held responsible by the court; otherwise the value of the probation system is lost.
I think all social workers are agreed that the most favourable time for successful influence on the offender is between the date of charge and the date of sentence. Probation officers all over the country report that those cases which are most likely to fail on probation are those cases in which the probation officers were not consulted before a probation order was made. There are to-day 800 probation officers appointed by the courts as servants of the courts to make investigations under the authority of Rule 37 of the Statutory Probation Regulations and also to supervise those offenders placed on probation. It is highly desirable that the local authority should under this clause supply the information that is in their possession at the time of notification, and I understand that originally Clause 20 was framed for this purpose, but the Government in their enthusiasm to win the co-operation of the local authorities omitted to remember the important work of investigation carried out by the

733
another place and a paragraph was inserted in the clause providing for notification to be made to the probation officer; again on the Report stage in another place the proviso at the end of subsection (2) was added.
The clause as it now stands does not satisfy me. I regret I cannot agree with the Lord Privy Seal, who, as quoted in Column 493 in the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the Second Reading said:
"The inquiries will be undertaken by the local education committees and I should think it would be extremely likely that they would call in the assistance of the probation officer."
I beg to differ from the noble Viscount, and I think it is extremely unlikely that the local authorities will call in the assistance of the probation officer, for I fail to see in the justices, the local authority, and the probation officers the happy triumvirate which the noble Viscount takes for granted. I think it should be pointed out here that for the children under fourteen years of age the local authority means the education authority, and for the young persons over fourteen and under seventeen years of age the local authority means the police, and it may also mean the Poor Law authority. If the local authority makes extensive investigations, beyond those facts which they have already in their possession at the time of notification, it will almost certainly entail extra officials and greater expense. On the other hand, under the Home Office training scheme the local probation officer, who in county areas is responsible for both juvenile and adult courts, is being specially trained for the work of investigation.
This Amendment calls upon the local authority to supply the valuable information in their possession at the time of notification without duplicating the work of the probation officer, by making further investigations in the field, unless the particular local circumstances indicate that the local authority should make such further inquiries, in which case the court will be fully empowered to request them to do so. In framing this Amendment I have endeavoured to preserve the prerogatives of the court. The clause as it stands ties the hands of the court, for it restricts the power of the court by the duties which it imposes upon local authorities. It first compels the local
734
authority to make the investigations, and under the proviso at the end of subsection (2) it leaves the local authority discretionary powers to make investigations even if the court arranges for the probation officer to do the work. My Amendment does not prevent the court from obtaining any information, but it ensures that there shall be no duplication of work or redundancy of paid officials.
Your Lordships will observe that I have omitted from my Amendment reference to "cases of a trivial nature." I do this because these inquiries will be made before the case comes into court. They are pre-trial investigations and it has to be borne in mind that it will not be the court who shall decide the question of triviality. The local authority should be discouraged from bringing into court eases of such a trivial nature that they require no investigation, but in my experience I can remember several cases which on investigation appeared to be otherwise. I remember the trivial case of a hawker, charged with a petty offence. He was fined by the court five shillings, which was paid by a lady of easy virtue, who was present to pay a fine on her own account. It was a wrong sentence. Investigation proved that the man was destitute, and he should either have been put on probation or dismissed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I rise to support very strongly the Amendment of my noble friend. In the first place, owing to the great experience of my noble friend in this class of work, any Amendment from a practical point of view which he brings forward should receive serious consideration. He has seen the working of the Act, and taken a prominent part in the working of the Act, and must know what procedure would be most economic and appropriate. I support his Amendment for two specific reasons, apart from the authority which is behind it. One reason is that it is of no use having an officer appointed and paid by the court unless you use him, and secondly, that if you do not use him you are going to spend unnecessary money.
What is the case before the Committee? There is going to be a charge against a

735
young person or a child. The court naturally will desire to have as much information about that child as possible, and that information will include the home surroundings of the child, its school record, its character and health, and the schools which are available to take that child. The Bill says that the local authority, in sending all the information which it has in its documents to the court, shall make all the investigations Which I have just outlined, as to the school record, health, character, etc. of the child, and provide all the material for the prosecution. My noble friend, as I understand his Amendment, says that that may very often be doing something which is already available, or largely available. A probation officer who knows all the local circumstances has a great deal of this information available, and at any rate is an expert person and can make this investigation. The local authority would have to send an official who would know nothing about the business to conduct the investigation, and so he says that not only shall it be mandatory that these probation officers shall conduct these investigations, but that if the court so wish they shall ask the probation officer to do the work, and not be obliged to rely upon the local authority. That seems to be common sense. Let the court decide who shall make the investigation. Why in the name of common sense should they not be allowed to do that, instead of making it mandatory upon the local authorities to do the work?
LORD SANDERSON: I have very great respect for the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, and his wide knowledge of this question of probation. I know he has made a very special study of the subject, both on the theoretical and the practical side, and although he is still a young man I know him to possess probably as much knowledge on the subject as anybody in the country. It is not, of course, owing to my respect for the noble Earl's knowledge that I support this Amendment. It is not only for that reason but because it is a very sensible Amendment that I support it. Surely, when children are charged, it is proper to get the widest knowledge you can of their conditions and of their environment and the causes of their misdemeanours from the most capable people, the people most likely to be able to give the necessary information. The
736
probation officers are certainly the best people to do that because they are trained and a large part of their training is in that direction. I very much hope that this Amendment will pass. I have not had the clause read to me lately but, quoting from memory, the clause says that the probation officer is to be notified when a child is charged with an offence. That is not enough. If he is to be notified, why should he not also be empowered to make the necessary investigations? It seems to me a very simple alteration in the Bill, which would improve the Bill very much and would make the investigations of the reasons for the offences of these young people very much easier and simpler.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It will be remembered that, by virtue of Clause 79, the powers and duties of a local authority under the Bill as regards children will, in the administrative County of London, fall upon the London County Council as local education authority for elementary education. The Council, in connection With the discharge of its duties under the Education Act, 1921, and the Children Act, 1908, has in its possession the requisite information and an organisation available which would be of valuable service in assisting the court with information on the matters referred to in Clause 20.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment does not in any way prevent them providing the information which is in their possession. My Amendment is to limit the local authority as regards further investigations in the field covered by the probation officer.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment would, therefore, surely cause a considerable overlapping of functions as between probation officers and local authorities, which would be highly undesirable in such a large area as London, would be detrimental, and would make it very difficult for the Council to carry out their functions under the Act. The present clause contains a proviso which is an effective safeguard against any danger there might be of overlapping as regards inquiries into home surroundings by providing that, where the court or probation committee arrange for investigations as to home surroundings to be made by a probation officer, the local authority shall not be under obligation

737
to make such investigations. That is the opinion expressed by the competent education authority of London, the London County Council. That is the opinion to which I adhere and to which I believe the Government will also adhere.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: I share the universal appreciation of the noble Earl who moved this Amendment on account of the work that he has done and the authority which he undoubtedly has upon these questions. Therefore I regret all the more that I am not able to accept this Amendment. I doubt very much whether his Amendment would attain the purpose which he has in view and it would certainly not meet the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple. If I understood him aright, he was anxious to eliminate the local authority altogether in making inquiries into the conditions of the children.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I make it clear that I was against their making further inquiries and not against their providing any information already in their possession?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The clause brings the local authority into operation in regard to making inquiries into the home conditions, school record, and the like of a child who gets into the hands of the police. It is, I understand from what has been said in support of the Amendment, considered that there is an unnecessary duplication of work here. I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who expressed the view that the probation officer was in all respects more competent to give information and advice about the home and other conditions of the child than the officers of a local education authority.
LORD SANDERSON: I did not intend to suggest that the probation officer was more competent. I think that I said he was a very competent and well trained person and quite capable of doing this work.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: That is so. Of course, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, the local authority will now have to supply information to the court in regard to the circumstances and surroundings of the child. The probation officer, as your Lordships know, is the
738
servant of the court and they can order him to do whatever they think fit. Notice has to be sent to the probation officer and he no doubt in the ordinary exercise of his duties and apart from any instructions from the court in regard to a specific case, will make inquiries and therefore his information will be at the service of the court. As a matter of fact that is provided for under the rules and regulations, to which the noble Earl referred on an earlier Amendment this afternoon.
May I say that there seems to be some little doubt as to whether these regulations would be affected at all by the passing of this Bill? I may tell the noble Earl that these regulations would not be affected at all by the passing of this Bill and that the Probation Rules of 1926 would continue in operation and be effective until they were changed by the Secretary of State. As I understand the noble Earl's Amendment, it would restrict the duties of the local authority to supplying information which is already in their possession and he does not want to impose on them the additional work and duty of making further investigations. It might be—and I dare say in most cases it would be—unnecessary for the local authority to do more than to apply to its officials, who no doubt, without much investigation, could give all the information that would be necessary to enable the local authority to make its report to the court. There is room for these two methods of investigation. The Bill does not interfere at all with the present duties of the probation officer, who is a servant of the court and who will always be available to make any further inquiries and to supplement any information which has already been put before the court.
The noble Lord quoted from a statement that I made in reply to the debate on Second Reading of the Bill, and in answer to that I am able to repeat that it is open to the local authority by agreement to arrange, if they so desire, that the information shall be collected by the probation officer. The noble Earl can be assured that the statement that I made on that occasion was correct, and that there is nothing at all to prevent the local authority from coming to an arrangement with the probation officer to make inquiries and to supply the information which it is necessary for the local autho-

739
rity to furnish. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I am sure he will agree that, if we cannot accept it, it is to our regret, for we have placed the services of our officials at his disposal, and assisted him as far as we were able in this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, referred to an Amendment of his own which is down on the Paper. I do not know whether I should be quite in order in commenting upon that at the moment, but perhaps I may say that, when we come to that Amendment, we shall have very great pleasure in accepting it.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am afraid that, after the explanations of the Lord Privy Seal, I am still at a loss to know why, with the provisions of the clause as they stand, your Lordships should sanction that the local authority should be allowed to make further investigations, even though the court may have asked the probation officer to make investigations. That seems to me to entail greater expense and a redundancy of officials. I fear that, with my lack of knowledge of draftsmanship, I may not have emphasised the point I wished, but the principle underlying my Amendment is one that I should very much wish your Lordships to sanction.
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: May I say, in reply to what the noble Earl has said, that there cannot be any possibility of an increase of officials under this clause? It is quite open to the local authority to use the probation officer to carry out this work. I think it is very desirable that, apart from any investigations that the probation officer may be able to make, and apart from any report that he may furnish the court, this should be supplemented by the investigation—probably in most cases it would not be an investigation at all, but the supplying of the court with a record of the case, which they would be able to supply from their own sources: their school attendance officers, their school teachers and others.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I cannot agree that there will not be an increased expenditure. As the noble Viscount has explained, the court may—probably will—instruct their investigating officers to investigate the facts for their own information. Under the Bill the local authority shall make the same investigation and report to the court. My noble
740
friend wants it to be confined, if possible, to the probation officer but to leave it to the discretion of the court. It seems to me, therefore, perfectly obvious that in some cases there must be a double investigation, by the probation officer and the local authority, and more expense.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 21:
"Conviction" and "sentence" not to be used in relation to juveniles dealt with summarily.
". The words 'conviction' and 'sentence' shall cease to be used in relation to children and young persons dealt with summarily and any reference in any enactment to a person convicted, a conviction or a sentence shall, in the case of a child or young person, be construed as including a reference to a person found guilty of an offence, a finding of guilt or an order made upon such a finding, as the case may be:
Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the power to send youthful delinquents to Borstal Institutions) a finding that a person is guilty of an offence shall not have the effect of a conviction if he is dealt with for that offence under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to eliminate a term of offence, and to make a differentiation—
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: It may perhaps save the time of your Lordships if I say that, if you are willing, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: One minute. I am not at all sure that I view with favour this reversal of the firm attitude of the noble Viscount. I confess I do not understand the first paragraph of the new clause. With regard to the next paragraph, it appears to me that, where a young person is convicted of a crime, that conviction is not to be reported. I happen to be a magistrate, and I find that, when a young person is brought up for having stolen something, the magistrates generally say: "Oh, well, this is a first offence. We will not send this young person to prison. We will simply bind him over." If that young

741
person is again before the magistrates and is convicted, the chairman then asks whether anything is known, and, if anything is known, that person is sent to prison or gets some other punishment; but under this clause that will not obtain, because the conviction will not be recorded, and therefore a young person, as long as he or she is under seventeen, may commit two or three, or any number of crimes and will always come up before the magistrate as a first offender, because the other conviction or convictions will not be reported. The magistrate will know nothing about them, and the person will not be properly dealt with. I fail to understand all this sentimental idea about not convicting somebody who has done wrong.
What really does take place with the majority of these people—not only young people but older people—is that they say: "Oh, we will run the risk of stealing this, or committing some other crime, because if we are found out and brought up before the court we shall say this is a first offence, and we shall only get bound over. Therefore we will run the risk." What do they care about being bound over? What do they mind whether they are in a court used ordinarily as a police court or not? All this sort of thing has resulted in the crimes committed by young persons increasing, and they will go on increasing as long as you deal with them in this foolish and sentimental manner. Therefore I am sorry to hear that the noble Viscount proposes to accept this Amendment. I hope on further consideration he will change his mind, and will do nothing of the kind. It is going to do no good to anybody, and may do a considerable amount of harm.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I venture to correct a misunderstanding by my noble friend Lord Banbury? He objected to this clause first of all because it would embarrass magistrates, since they would no longer be able to tell whether a person has already been brought up; and, secondly, he rather objected to the sentimental method of dealing with young prisoners under the Probation of Offenders Act. I may reassure him if I assure him this clause has no reference to either of those matters.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Can the noble and learned Viscount say what it has reference to
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, I will in a moment. So far as the question of record is concerned, there is nothing in this clause which will alter the fact that anybody who is brought up before a court and is bound over, or is otherwise dealt with, will have that fact recorded against him, and any magistrate who enquires what is known about any prisoner will have just the same information whether this clause is the law or not. The only difference so far as the main part of the clause is concerned is that the words "conviction and sentence" are not being used in the case of those young offenders. So far as the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, this clause does not alter, either to increase or diminish, the power of magistrates to bind over young offenders.
I will not enter into a discussion with my noble friend as to whether the more lenient course which is now commonly adopted in the magistrates' courts is wise or not, or whether we ought to go back to the old days when they hanged people for certain offences. That is a little too far even for my noble friend. I am not going to discuss that point. The proviso, which is the only reference to the Probation of Offenders Act, says that for the purposes of the power given in the 1914 Act of sending youthful delinquents to Borstal institutions, the fact that a person is found guilty of an offence shall not have the effect of a conviction—that is to say, for the purpose of deciding whether he shall go to Borstal if the original sentence is one which has been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. Whether it is so dealt with or not remains quite unaffected by this clause. I do not think this is a matter of first rate importance, but the Government think it is useful and I intervene only to reassure my noble friend and in the interests of time.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for having explained the clause to me. He had not the pleasure of listening to the noble Earl, and those of us who have not had the good fortune to be lawyers do not always understand the various forms of verbiage used. I understand, however, from my noble and learned friend that; the clause does nothing, and therefore I will not continue my objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
General provisions as to orders committing children and young persons to care of fit person.
23.—(1) The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions "boy" and "girl" mean respectively a boy or a girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person.
(2) Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years.
(7) The Secretary of State, in any case where it appears to him to be for the benefit of a boy or girl who has been committed to the care of any person, may empower that person to arrange for his or her emigration, but except with the authority of the Secretary of State, no person to whose care a boy or girl is committed shall arrange for his or her emigration: Provided that the Secretary of State shall not empower a person to arrange for the emigration of a boy or girl unless he is satisfied that the boy or girl consents, and also that his or her parents have been consulted, or that it is not practicable to consult them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after "girl." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether we are going to continue the sitting.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes a little longer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I will move my Amendment to Clause 23. The effect of it is this. The subsection says:
"Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years."
The words which I wish to leave out are "and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years." It seems to me that to keep a young person who is seventeen and a-half under the provisions of this subsection will add very considerably to the cost of the
744
measure, and will not do very much good. After all, when a young person becomes seventeen, surely he or she ought to be in such a position as to know what he or she wants to do with himself or herself, and why we should continue to keep these people in custody—because that is what it means—at the expense of the ratepayers or taxpayers until they attain the age of eighteen I cannot see.
The first subsection of this clause says:
"The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions 'boy' and girl' mean respectively a boy or girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person."
Then the clause goes on to say that every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl. That, I should have thought, was sufficient. Why do we want to add to that that they shall remain in custody until they attain the age of eighteen? Partly from the regard I have for the liberty of the subject and the dislike I have to committing these practically grown-up people to the care of other people, and partly also in the interests of economy, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, leave out from ("girl") to end of line 28.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: The noble Lord has made quite clear what his purpose is in moving this Amendment, but I am afraid he does not appreciate that if it were carried it would have exactly the opposite effect to that which he desires. The Bill then would contain no provision at all for fixing the period during which a "fit person order" was to remain in force, and this clause does limit it to eighteen. I quite understand that the noble Lord's real wish is to reduce the age of eighteen which is given in the Bill. The reason the age of eighteen has been fixed is that it is thought there should be a reasonable time for a fit person to have the supervision of a boy or girl, and this age of eighteen is analogous to the supervision of pupils in approved schools. But I would like to remind the noble Lord also that it does not necessarily mean that all these young persons will be kept under an order until they reach the age

745
of eighteen. Eighteen is the maximum age, and it will always be open to the court to revoke or modify an order which has been made. Apart from the fatal objection to the noble Lord's Amendment that it would do the very opposite of what he intends, I think that is also a sufficient objection.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Would the noble Viscount accept my Amendment if I altered it and moved it to leave out "eighteen" and substitute "sixteen"? That would meet his point that there is no limit to the age. If the noble Viscount will look at Clause 29 he will see that there is a limit where a child is ordered to be sent to an approved school. There is no limit here, but in Clause 29 there is a limit of three years from the date of the order. Would the noble Viscount put in something of that sort?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: That would carry it up to the age of nineteen.
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM: Yes, but later on I am going to move to leave out nineteen. Would the noble Viscount accept that?
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: No, I am afraid I cannot.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I will consider whether I can draft an Amendment which the noble Viscount will be able to accept on Report. I do not want to do what is always disagreeable to me, to vote against the Government, and so I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in, the proviso in subsection (7), after "practicable," to insert "or desirable." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because it seems advisable for the sake of elasticity to make some provision of this kind. A thing may be practicable but may not be at all desirable. Instances will no doubt occur to the minds of your Lordships. I might mention the ease dealt with in Clause 9 (1) (i) of
"a child or young person who, having no parent or guardian or a parent or guardian who is unfit to exercise care and guardianship, or is not exercising proper care and guardianship, is falling into bad associations or is opposed to moral danger or is beyond control."
746
In practice it might not be at all desirable to consult such an indivdual although it might be quite practicable.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 18, at end insert ("or desirable").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I hope the noble Lord will not insist on this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to sanction emigration without consulting the parents if he is satisfied that it is not desirable to consult them. It should be emphasised that the proviso does not require that the parents should consent to the proposed emigration. If there were a statutory requirement of consent it would be necessary to make an exception on the lines proposed by the noble Lord to meet cases in which selfish or undesirable parents refused their consent to emigration when it was clearly in the best interests of the child. The clause provides, however, merely for consultation with the parents and there is no suggestion that the wishes of the parents should override what the Secretary of State considers to be in the best interests of the child. It is reasonable that even the worst of parents should at least be told that their child is to emigrate, and the clause as it now stands will ensure that the parents shall, wherever practicable, be informed.
LORD ASKWITH: If the clause is only to give power to the Secretary of State to do what he thinks right in the matter I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think your Lordships will probably find it convenient not to attempt to proceed further this evening, and so I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly, the EARL OF LUCAN on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before we go on to the next business which is the formal Committee stage of a Bill to which there are no Amendments, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I propose that we should resume the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill on Monday. It might

747
possibly be safer if we met at half past three that afternoon, unless that is inconvenient to any of your Lordships. We have only dealt with six pages of the Amendment Paper and there are fifteen pages remaining.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I appreciate the intention of the noble and learned Viscount, but I think it would be more convenient if we met at the usual time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Very well then, we will meet at a quarter past four on Monday.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.