CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

HL Deb 13 June 1932 vol 84 cc752-808

House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.

Clause 24:

Power to commit child or young person to care of local authority.

(2) The Secretary of State may cause boys and girls committed to the care of a local authority to be visited from time to time by his inspectors, and rules made by him under the last preceding section may contain provisions as to the persons with whom and the conditions under which they may be boarded out.

(4) Where the local authority are of opinion that any boy or girl who has been committed to their care and who is under seventeen years of age should be sent to an approved school they may apply to a juvenile court, and that court may, if they think that it is desirable in his or her interests so to do, ardor him or her to be sent to such a school.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "by his inspectors." The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid the duplication of inspection. The Poor Law authorities have a number of inspectors who look after the condition of the children in Poor Law institutions, who are boarded out under the Poor Law, and this Amendment, will enable the local authority, as the fit authority for young persons under this Bill, to come to an arrangement with the Poor Law authorities that they should do the work of inspection. I am quite sure it is an Amendment that will meet with your Lordships' approval.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 39, leave out ("by his inspectors").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), to leave out "seventeen" and to insert "sixteen." The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount would rather that I moved this Amendment on Clause 68. My idea was that had better move it first at this point, and then move it on Clause 68; hut I am always most anxious to meet His Majesty's Government.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Religious persuasion of person to whom child or young person is committed]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "is" ["a juvenile court … is satisfied"] and to insert "are." The noble Viscount said: This certainly seems a little mixed, as a court is treated as both plural and singular—

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 34, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:

Contents of approved school orders.

(5) Every approved school order, other than an order mentioned in the next succeeding subsection, shall name the local authority within whose district the child or young person was resident, or if it is not known where he was resident, the local authority or one of the local authorities within whose district the offence was committed or, as the case may be, the circumstances arose rendering the child or young person liable to be sent to an approved school.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to insert after subsection (3): (4) The court shall before making the approved school order endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion of the child or young person, and the order shall embody a declaration with respect thereto. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is self-explanatory. Its sole object is to bring the provisions of the Bill for ascertaining the religious persuasion of a boy or girl who is to be sent to an approved school into conformity with the provisions in Clause 23 (3).

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISOUNT SNOWDEN moved to add to subsection (5): Provided that in the case of a child or young person not resident in England, the order shall, instead of naming a local authority, state that he was resident outside England. The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with migrant children of Scottish domicile who get into trouble in England, and are sent by an English court to an approved school. The cost will be borne in the first instance by the Exchequer if he remains in an English school, but one half of it, in accordance with the general provisions of the Bill, will be chargeable to the local authority. But it will be impossible to assign such a boy to any local authority in this country, and, therefore, this Amendment will enable the local authority's share of the cost of maintenance to be spread over the whole of the local authorities in this country.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 31, leave out ("residing") and insert ("resident").— (Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Period of detention in approved school]:

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move to leave out subsection (2) said: I will move this Amendment in another form on Report.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Enforcement of duty of parent, &c., to make contributions.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this sub-section—

1. (a) a contribution order shall be enforceable as an affiliation order and the enactments relating to the enforcement of affiliation orders shall apply accordingly, subject to any necessary modifications; and
2. (b)Section thirty of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which contains provisions as to orders for the periodical payment of money made by courts of summary jurisdiction) shall apply to every contribution order whether the court which made it was, or was not, a court of summary jurisdiction;

but any powers conferred by any of the enactments aforesaid on any justices or courts of summary jurisdiction shall be exercisable, and exercisable only, by justices and courts of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the person liable is for the time being residing.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (4), after paragraph (b), to insert: (c) the committal to prison of any person under a contribution order shall not cancel the sum owing. The noble Lord said: Clause 31 provides at the end that a contribution order shall he enforceable as an affiliation order, and the enactment relating to the enforcement of affiliation orders shall apply accordingly, subject to any necessary modification. Your Lordships will know that affiliation orders are really of very little use, because, if the person against whom they are made is either unable or unwilling to pay, the only alternative left to the magistrates is to commit him to prison, and the committal to prison cancels the debt. Therefore I beg to move this Amendment so that the committal to prison of any person under a contribution order shall not cancel the sum owing. It seems to be a very reasonable provision and I hope His Majesty will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

This is a point that the noble Lord has already raised in the course of our discussions. He has stated the law as it applies to affiliation orders—namely, that imprisonment for accrued debt wipes out the payment. The reason the Government are not able to accept this Amendment is that we could not very well alter the general law in regard to the annulment of debt by imprisonment on what might almost be called a side issue of this character. This is a matter that has often been debated by Parliament, and upon all occasions Parliament has approved or maintained the existing law in regard to the annulment of debt by imprisonment. The reason Parliament has invariably taken that line is that it is regarded as oppressive that a person should be sent to prison more than once for the non-payment of the same sum of money. I am not a lawyer, but I understand this is the principle that is uniformly accepted in the English law. It may be said that a man is recalcitrant, that he could pay if he would, but refuses to do so. It is considered that even in the case of such a man he is much more likely to change his mind and to begin paying if he is not required to pay sums in respect of which he has already served a term of imprisonment. For these reasons the Government are unable to accept the Amendment and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.

LORD DANESFORT

If I understood the noble Viscount aright, his real objection to the Amendment of my noble friend is that he cannot have a similar amendment to the law affecting affiliation—

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

No, that is not SO.

LORD DANESFORT

Well, if that is not the reason I cannot conceive of any reason. Here there is an admitted gross abuse. I know that sitting on the magistrates' bench I have often been horrified at the absolute impossibility of getting a man to comply with an affiliation order. He will not pay. The magistrates do not like to send him to gaol because that wipes out all his liability, and consequently he goes on defying the court which has ordered him to pay a certain amount for the child for whom he is liable. He goes on refusing to pay-because he knows the magistrates do not want to send him to gaol and so wipe out his contribution, knowing he cannot be forced to pay the amount due under the affiliation order if once he goes to gaol. Now the noble Viscount appears to desire to perpetuate that extremely unsatisfactory process, and to reduce the contribution order to the same state of absurdity and incapacity of enforcement as the affiliation order. I hope my noble friend will press this to a Division. We are all anxious, I think, that if a contribution order is made a man should pay, and should not be able to get his liability wiped out by going to prison.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The noble Lord quite misunderstood the reason I gave for not accepting this Amendment. I pointed out that this matter has been considered over and over again by Parliament, and Parliament has invariably adhered to the principle of English law, that when imprisonment has been served for a debt that wipes out the accrued debt. I speak with considerable hesitation, but, with regard to affiliation orders, is not the law that when payments become due after the arrears have been wiped out by imprisonment the defaulter can be brought before the court again and sent to prison once more for the further accrued arrears?

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble Viscount says that once a man has been in prison the debt is wiped out, but I believe that is not the ease where a man has acted fraudulently in regard to the payment of Income Tax. In such a case he not only goes to prison but he is still liable to pay.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble Viscount says he is not a lawyer; neither am I. But the noble Viscount has no objection to altering the law. He is altering the law in this Bill. He is altering the Act of 1908. In this Bill he enacts that for the future a person who has a child can go to the court, and if he can persuade the court that his child ought to be taken care of at the expense of the ratepayer or taxpayer, that then that court can make the order. Last week the noble Viscount told me that there was always a safeguard, because the court could order the parent or guardian to pay a certain sum. I pointed out that the order could only be made if the court was satisfied the man had means, and that if an order was made it could only be enforced as an affiliation order. The noble Viscount says now that because we have a law which has not worked very well in the past we must not alter it. I am not such an inveterate Tory as the noble Viscount. I am not against altering the law if I find that it is wrong.

As my noble friend Lord Danesfort said, what happens now under an affiliation order is that a man comes up and, knowing that the magistrates will not send him to prison if they can possibly avoid it, says he cannot pay. The magistrates do not quite know what to do and the chairman asks: "Cannot you make some offer?" That happens very often. The man then says that he will pay something, probably about a third of what is owing. The chairman says: "Very well, we will adjourn the case for a month to see if you do it." There is another sort of man who comes up and the magistrates know it is no use doing anything because he will not pay He goes to prison and the debt is wiped out. A fresh order is made and the man again goes to prison. He does not mind. Prison is not so very uncomfortable in these days and he prefers to go to prison lather than pay. I trust that in the

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Contributions by local authorities in respect of persons sent to approved schools]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I have given notice of a manuscript Amendment to this clause. It is only a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 33, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(Viscount Bertie of Marne.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The Amendments standing on the Paper in my name are drafting Amendments which are necessary in view of the Amendment dealing with Scottish migrant children which your Lordships accepted last week. I beg to move.

interests of economy at any rate this Amendment will be accepted.

On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Onslow, E.	Hindlip, L.
		Jessel, L.
Camden, M.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Lamington, L.
Salisbury, M.	Hereford, V.	Mamhead, L.
	Addington, L.	Monkswell, L.
Bathurst, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Newton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.		Remnant, L.
	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Feversham, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Strachie, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Danesfort, L. [Teller.]	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Midleton, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Wharton, L.
Morton, E.	Forester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Astor, V.	Hampton, L.
	Goschen, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)	Knutsford, V.	Lovat, L.
	Mersey, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Reading, M.		Mildmay of Flete, L.
	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Leven and Melville, E.		Rhayader, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Askwith, L.	Rochester, L.
Plymouth, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Sanderson, L.
Rothes, E.		Snell, L.
Strafford, E.	Craigmyle, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Darling, L.
	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Stanmore, L.
Allendale, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Stonehaven, L.
	Gainford, L.	Treowen, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 27, line 38, after ("authority,") insert ("or was resident outside England,")

Page 28, line 9, at end insert ("or was resident outside England")

Page 28, line 11, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, a statement that the said person was resident outside England")

Page 28, line 15, after ("concerned") insert ("if any")

Page 28, line 26, leave out ("is made—(a),") and insert ("(a) is made")

Page 28, line 30, after ("(b)") insert (" is made ")

Page 28, line 34, at end insert ("or

(c) relates to a child or young person stated in the "order to have been resident outside England.")—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37:

Provision of remand homes by councils of counties and county boroughs.

37.—(1) It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to provide for their area remand homes, which may be situate either within or without the area, and for that purpose they may arrange with the occupiers of any premises for the use thereof, or may themselves establish, or join with the council of another county or county borough in estalbishing, such homes.

LORD NEWTON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that where a place or places of detention have been provided under the principal Act which are suitable for use as remand homes and so long as such place or places are adequately maintained they shall be deemed to be remand homes and there shall be no obligation on any council to provide further or additional accommodation in pursuance of this section. The noble Lord said: This is another of the economy Amendments and I move it at the instance of the West Riding County Council, a body which is not likely to be of a reactionary character because, if I am not mistaken, it contains a large proportion of Socialist members. The attitude of this body is that they have no objection to the Bill in principle. If it had been brought in a year or two ago they would have welcomed it, but under the present conditions of financial stringency they object strongly to additional expenditure being imposed on them, more especially when it happens, as in this case, to be quite unnecessary.

This Clause 37 repeals Section 108 of the principal Act which lays down that it is the duty of the police authority to provide a place of detention in every petty sessional division. The clause which we are now discussing repeals that particular section and enacts that remand homes are to be established in numerous centres which were more or less defined by the noble Viscount on the last occasion when we debated the Bill. It enacts that it shall be the duty of the local authority to establish these remand homes. I do not know the difference between a place of detention and a remand home, but I presume a remand home is a more expensive institution. It so happens that the West Riding is already freely provided with institutions of this nature. They have, I believe, an excellent institution at Shipley which answers the purpose perfectly well and about which there have been no complaints hitherto. In these circumstances it seems very unreasonable to force a local authority winch has done its duty to provide the accommodation specified under the Bill.

I remember on the last occasion the noble Viscount repudiated any suggestion that inspectors of the Home Office or officials of that character were persons of an extravagant and unreasonable nature. I quite agree. But it almost appears to me that the action of these officials is dictated not by their own proclivities, but by the personality, character and view of the Minister who happens to be in charge of the Department for the time being, and I am certain that if any noble Lord sitting opposite happened to be Home Secretary with this Act in force he would make very stringent demands of this sort whenever an opportunity arrived. My own inclination, and I was requested to do it, was to move the deletion of the clause, but it seems to me that the Amendment standing in my name is one of such a very moderate and reasonable character that the noble Viscount might very well accept it without doing any harm to the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 26, after ("homes") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I think the noble Lord has submitted this Amendment under a misapprehension. He seems to assume that under this clause there will be a considerable expenditure in the provision of new places for the temporary detention of these children. That is not the case at all. I have a very great respect for the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is my own County Council, but they too are under a misapprehension. The noble Lord cited the case of a remand home at Shipley and seemed to assume that under this clause that place will be discontinued or closed and that some new and expensive building to take its place will be erected. I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships generally that that is not at all the intention. It is not anticipated that there will be any increase in expenditure under the provisions of this Clause 37, which are not going to abolish all the existing premises established under Section 108 of the Children Act and compel county councils and county boroughs to build new places. The clause transfers the responsibility from the police to the local authority to provide these places and that is the only change that is either provided for or contemplated in the clause. I can assure your Lordships once more that this fear that certain clauses of the Bill are going to result in a large increase of expenditure is altogether unfounded. After this explanation I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD JESSEL

I cannot see why this provision should not be inserted in the Bill. If the place at Shipley is not going to be done away with no harm is done, but I think the Amendment contains a very reasonable suggestion. We shall not always have the same Minister as at present and it might be very irksome on local authorities to be compelled at some future time to provide these places of detention. I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one for the protection of local authorities, like the West Riding County Council, which already have sufficient accommodation. I am also rather astounded at the noble Viscount saying that fears are unfounded about any more expenditure falling on local authorities because of this Bill. I read only the other day a report from the London County Council stating that in present circumstances, without taking into account the increased age, it will cost London no less than £10,000 a year.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

It is absurd.

LORD JESSEL

I cannot therefore understand the statement that it is unreasonable to apprehend these expenses. I do hope the noble Viscount will consent to this very small Amendment to a clause which is certainly giving a great deal of alarm to local authorities.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I do not quite understand what the answer of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal is to the point raised. It is not sufficient to say that you are not likely to have expenses of this kind. As I understand the Amendment and the mover of it the proposal is designed simply to prevent useless expenditure, and if you have places already provided why should it be necessary to provide others? Why should we take any additional risk of expenditure nowadays? If there is nothing else in the Bill to meet the point raised by the Amendment I would suggest that this Amendment might be accepted. I know nothing about the particular dis- trict or example which has been cited, but on general principles I think it is necessary for us when dealing with legislation to take care that no opportunity is given for increased expense, even though we may think that those at present in charge, and possibly those who may follow them, are not likely to have resort to it. I cannot understand why my noble friend will not accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Viscount assured your Lordships that the provisions in the Bill would not throw extra expenditure on the country or upon the ratepayers. May I take it that his speech covered both?

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I am afraid that one or two noble Lords, who have referred to my remark about no increased expenditure, gave a much wider interpretation to my observation than it really carried. I was speaking about this particular Amendment and not about the Bill as a whole. I shall have something to say about the total estimated cost to the Exchequer and the local authorities later. It is simply intended that the existing places shall continue to be used by the local authority and to be under control of the local authority. I do not think the Amendment will make much difference or that it will lead to any economy, but, if it is the wish of your Lordships that the Amendment should be accepted, I do not mind doing so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 35 leave out ("person") and insert ("child or young person").— (Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT

In view of the concession which the noble Viscount has very properly made in accepting the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Newton, I do not propose to move the omission of Clause 37.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Escapes from remand homes, and from the care of fit persons]:

LORD DANESFORT

The Amendments on the Paper in my name were consequential upon eliminating Clause 37 and therefore fall to the ground.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I have here a manuscript drafting Amendment in the name of Lord Bertie.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 19, leave out ("which") and insert ("who").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43:

Provision of approved schools by local authorities.

43.—(1) A local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, undertake, or combine with any other local authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards, the purchase, establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding or management of an approved school.

(2) In the event of a deficiency of approved schood accommodation, it shall be the duty of every local authority concerned to take, either alone or in combination with other local authorities, appropriate steps under this section to remedy the deficiency.

LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out Clause 43. The noble Lord said: This again is an economy Amendment and the noble Viscount will not suggest that, if this clause stands, it will involve no increase in expenditure. It seems absolutely certain that it must increase expenditure because it says: A local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State "— that may or not be a protection, it depends upon the Secretary of State— undertake, or combine with any other local authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards the purchase, establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding or management of an approved school. The approved schools are in substitution for the industrial and reformatory schools and there is a provision in Clause 83 showing the duty of a Secretary of State in connection with such expenditure.

Clause 83 says: There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament— (i) such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may recommend towards— (a) the expenses of the managers of an approved school. It is obvious that, as the clause stands, there not only must be new expenditure but there is absolutely no limit to the expenditure, except that, as regards the taxpayer, Clause 83 imposes some limit to payments from the Exchequer. I see no limitation whatever on the money to be paid by the ratepayer. This clause gives the local authorities power to spend any suns they like for the purpose of establishing and building approved schools. Is this the time to give local authorities unlimited powers of taking money out of the pockets of the ratepayers? Your Lordships have already indicated sufficiently clearly, in the course of this debate and on other occasions, that it is your desire to protect the ratepayers of the country in this very grave emergency. Why is this additional expenditure necessary? I have heard nothing so far which proves that the industrial and reformatory schools in this country must be scrapped or improved or that there is any necessity to rebuild and enlarge the old industrial and reformatory schools and turn them into approved schools. Can the noble Viscount give us any estimate of the cost that might possibly be incurred under this provision or can he state any limits to the expenditure that might be indulged in? If not, in the absence of a demonstrable necessity for the clause, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 43.—(Lord Danesfort.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The Amendment to leave out this clause has been moved under a misapprehension. The clause does not propose anything new but transfers to this Bill powers contained in the Children Act. The clause is not going to be an incentive or an encouragement to local authorities to embark on lavish expenditure in the provision of new buildings. If this clause were eliminated from the Bill, whatever the necessity might be for the provision of improved schools or for improving the sanitation at an existing school, the local authority would have no power to carry out that work. There is, at the present time and as far as we can see, not the least likelihood that any additional expenditure will be incurred because the accommodation in these approved schools is quite ample. Under this Bill the number of children sent to approved schools is likely to be much smaller than it has been in the past, because a good many of the children who in the past have been sent to the approved schools will be tended by the local authority in boarding-out places. I can assure the noble Lord that this is not a new clause. It does not give to the local authorities any more right than they have at the present time to spend money. All the tendency is in the other direction—namely, that additional expenditure on new schools will not be necessary. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared not to press his Amendment.

LORD DANESFORT

If the noble Viscount assures me that the only necessity is to give the local authority powers of maintenance, that is a very different thing; but the clause enables local authorities to spend money on: the purchase, establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding or management of an approved school. I do not understand the position of the noble Viscount. He says that what he wants is to give them power to maintain and to repair. If that is his object, why give them power to purchase and to rebuild? If he will strike out all the provisions about purchasing and rebuilding, which we understand are unnecessary, it would be a very different thing. Unless he will give me an assurance to limit the clause to repair and maintenance when he comes to Report stage, I shall press my Amendment.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I would suggest to the noble Viscount, who does not wish for unlimited expenditure upon this clause, that it would be possible to put in some words of this kind: Every application by a local authority for the approval of the Secretary of State under this section shall include an estimate of the expenditure contemplated. It would really be an absurdity in these days that a local authority should go for the approval of the Secretary of State, obtain it blindfold, and afterwards spend an enormous sum of money in carrying a scheme out. I think the object of putting in the approval of the Secretary of State is to protect the ratepayers and the public, and he ought to have some estimate before him.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The noble Earl who has just spoken has had considerable experience of local government, and I would ask him whether he thinks that the Secretary of State would be likely to give his approval to a scheme submitted to him unless he had some idea what the cost was likely to be?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I rather hoped that the noble Viscount would tell your Lordships that the Government would carefully consider this clause again. It appears to be very wide in its terms. I quite followed the argument of the noble Viscount, and it had considerable effect upon my mind. He said that this power was already in the law, and the Government were only repeating what is already there. I wondered, therefore, why it was necessary to put it in at all. The clause appears to he of a very wide character, and your Lordships are very anxious indeed not to add any charges to the public burdens at the present time. Speaking for myself, I must say that I very much appreciate that view, and sympathise with it. We are most anxious, if we can, not to vote against the Government on this point, if we can reconcile that with our duty, but we must try and limit the expenditure on all Bills which now come before Parliament, so far as we can.

I will not press the Government to promise to eliminate this clause altogether—I have had no communication with my noble friend—but I think it would be quite sufficient if the Government would promise to reconsider the clause between now and Report. As I have said, there are very wide provisions in it. It actually provides that sites may be purchased and schools may be built; almost anything may be done under the terms of the clause. As regards maintenance or special cases I am sure your Lordships would listen to any argument that might be submitted, but I think there should be limiting words providing that only what is required should be done. I do not ask for any definite promise, but merely an undertaking that the matter shall be reconsidered.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I am, of course, always ready to reconsider a matter, but I cannot give any assurance. I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to do so.

THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY

You have absolute power on Report. You can do it again.

LORD DANESFORT

If the noble Viscount, without giving a positive undertaking, will give a promise that the Government will probably put in limiting words on Report, I will not ask the Committee to divide now, but if he merely confines himself to a statement that he will reconsider this, as he would reconsider anything in this world or the next, I really do not think the House would look upon it as of any value. If he can give me some definite undertaking to bring in words limiting the clause then I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment and reconsider it on Report.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I think it is rather unreasonable to expect me to go further than I have. To give a pledge now that we will amend the clause is, I think, rather more than I ought to be asked to do.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I cannot help feeling that the Government are being pressed a little too far. The noble Viscount has given an undertaking that he will reconsider the clause in view of what has been said, and surely a Minister in charge of a Bill cannot give an undertaking to change a clause unless he is satisfied on reconsideration that alteration is needed. It may be that no alteration can be made. I hope myself that any alteration which can be made, with a view of saving expense, consistent with the principle of the Bill, will be considered, but we cannot ask the noble Viscount to go further than he has already committed himself to go. The Amendment can be brought up again on Report.

LORD DANESFORT

I have heard the views expressed, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House that I should withdraw my Amendment, in the hope that the noble Viscount, by the time the Report stage is reached, will be better advised than he appears to be at this moment. If he does not give any satisfaction in the direction of economy on Report, I shall put down my Amendment again and press it to a Division, which I hope your Lordships will support. In view of his promised reconsideration I do not press my Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44:

Power to send children and young persons from Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands to approved schools in Great Britain.

(4) A person so ordered by the competent authority in Northern Ireland or by a court in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to be transferred or sent to an approved school in England, or so ordered by the Secretary of State to be retransferred to a school in Northern Ireland, may be conveyed in the custody of any constable or other person acting under a warrant issued by the competent authority in Northern Ireland, or by a court in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, or by the Secretary of State, as the case may be, to the school to which he is ordered to be transferred, sent or retransferred, and he shall during his conveyance to that school be deemed to be in legal custody.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

All my Amendments to this clause hang together, and they are, in a sense, consequential upon Amendments to a previous clause dealing with Scottish children in English schools.

Amendments moved—

Page 33, line 28, after the second ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 33, line 30, after ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 33, line 35, after ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 33, line 41, after ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 34, line 2, after ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 34, line 28, after the first ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 34, line 31, at end insert ("Scotland or").—(Viscount Snowden.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount are in the nature of drafting, or consequential, Amendments, and therefore to save time I shall put them en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), after "Northern Ireland" and before "may be conveyed" to insert "the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to find out why, although a child or young person can be transferred from Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, to a school in this country, he can only be retransferred to Northern Ireland and not to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

Amendments moved— Page 34, line 32, after ("Ireland") insert ("the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

Sometimes it is desirable to send children from Northern Ireland to a school in this country, and in that case the cost of the transferred child will be borne by the Government of Northern Ireland. It is proposed in subsection (2) of this clause that the Secretary of State should have power to retransfer to a Northern Ireland school a person who has been transferred from Northern Ireland if he becomes so troublesome that he cannot be managed in an English approved school. In regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man the position is different. There is no question of the transfer of children from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, because they are sent direct to approved schools in this country, and therefore they could not be transferred back, as in the case of Northern Ireland, from a Channel Island or an Isle of Man school, and, if what I may call an "island" child is to be sent back from an English school, he will either have to be discharged by the Secretary of State or released on licence by the managers of the school. A child returning to the Islands in these circumstances will not be in custody. There is no question, therefore, of retransfer to the Island schools, and the noble Viscount's Amendment seems to have been drafted under a misapprehension of the difference between the position in Northern Ireland and in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. With that explanation, I think, the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

The next three Amendments are all drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 34, line 34, after ("in") insert ("Scotland or")

Page 34, line 41, leave out ("In Northern Ireland")

Page 34, line 41, after ("means") insert ("in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Education Department, and in relation to Northern Ireland").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question Amendments agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended agreed to.

Clause 45, and 46 agreed to.

Clause 47:

Control over homes.

(2) Where any such direction is not complied with, a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the institution is situate may, on the complaint of any person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State, make an order for the removal of all children and young persons from the institution:

Provided that—

1. (i) such an order shall not be made unless the court are satisfied that the welfare of some of the children or young persons is endangered;
2. (ii) the court may, if they think fit, order that the direction shall be deemed to be modified to such extent as may be specified in the order, and the direction shall have effect accordingly.

Any person aggrieved may appeal to quarter sessions against an order made under this subsection, and for this purpose a refusal to make any such order shall be deemed to be such an order.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved, in subsection (2), after "Secretary of State," to insert "cause a summons to be served upon the person in charge of the institution and upon such other persons as the court may direct, and upon the hearing of the summons may, if they think fit." The noble Viscount said: Under the Bill as drafted, if a summons had to be issued it would have to be served upon every one of the managers of the institution. This Amendment proposes that if it be served on one person, say an official of the institution, that should be sufficient.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 2, after ("State,") insert the said words.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48:

Restrictions on employment of children.

48.—(1) No child under the age of twelve years shall be employed:

Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding section may authorise the employment of children under the age of twelve years by their parents or guardians.

(2) No child shall be employed before the close of school hours on any day on which he is required to attend school:

Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding section may authorise employment t before the commencement of school hours on such a day for not more than one hour.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The first part of the clause reads: No child under the age of twelve years shall be employed: That I leave in. That seems to me to be an excellent provision. But that excellent undertaking is cancelled by the words which I propose to leave out, because the clause goes on to say: Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding section may authorise the employment of children under the age of twelve years by their parents or guardians. Well, unless a parent or a guardian authorises the employment of a child of twelve years it cannot be employed at all, and therefore the effect of the words which I propose to omit is to nullify the first part of the clause. As far as I know, the Conservative Party for many years have always insisted that no child under the age of twelve should be employed. The first part of the clause a clear statement which I think ought to be maintained, and I do not understand why there should be a proviso that the local authority may authorise the parent to do exactly what we have said he must not do.

Amendment moved— Page 37, leave out from the beginning of line 42 to the end of line 2 on page 38.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I think there is more behind this Amendment than appears upon, the surface and it must be considered in relation to a considerable number of other Amendments that are on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord. His real objection appears to be against giving power to the local authorities to make by-laws in regard to the employment of children and young persons. He said—and I admit that his Amendments do not contradict this at all—that he was not opposed to the restriction of the employment of children under twelve years of age. The noble Lord may be under the impression that these powers are new. In fact, these provisions appeared in the Education Act, 1921, and they have been in existence for something like twelve years. I think it is desirable that these powers should be given to the local authorities in regard to permitting the employment of children under twelve by their parents, because circumstances differ, and they differ very much in different localities. There might in some localities be a kind of employment open to children which would be of a rather harmful character, even if they were employed by their parents. I think it is wise that discretion in these matters should be left to the local authority. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because, if it were carried, then the other Amendments which are consequential upon it would, I suppose, be adopted also, and, if that were the case, then the whole framework of this part of the Bill would be broken down, and all the protection that has been given to juveniles in regard to the employment of labour, built up during the last thirty years, would disappear.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not know what the noble Viscount means, because I have no ulterior designs in this, nor do I understand that, if my Amendment were carried, the protection of children under twelve would be done away with. On the contrary, if my Amendment were carried nobody would he able to employ children under twelve. The only other Amendment that I have to this clause is to leave out the proviso in subsection (2) which runs as follows: Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding section may authorise employment before the commencement of school hours on such a day for not more than one hour. I leave the position unchanged in all the other Amendments—no child shall be employed before six and after eight, and all that sort of thing—I leave all that in. I understand that this will alter a law made in the past. Well, the noble Viscount is always altering laws; why should not I alter laws?

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I think some of your Lordships will not quite understand why the local authority should be a better authority than Parliament as to whether children under twelve should be employed. I cannot quite follow the difficulty. In old days the abuse of the employment of young children was terrible, and certainly if that sort of thing were possible then the local authorities would not be the people to put a stop to it. I suggest to the noble Viscount that if we are to support the Government in this matter we should know why what Parliament obviously desires should not be done is to be made possible by the local authority.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I venture to appeal to the noble Viscount. I am very glad in this matter to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. The principle is clear and explicit that we desire no child under twelve to be employed, and it seems to me that it is very undesirable to proceed to say that a parent who may be a shopkeeper, or may be engaged in some form of domestic industry, is to be allowed to employ a child under that age without regard to the plain principle that no child under twelve ought to be employed.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It does appear to me that the noble Viscount might accept this Amendment. I have myself experience of a certain amount of unemployment and employment of children, and I realise that for the sake of a few shillings these parents or guardians would willingly allow their children to go to work. It seems to me most desirable this should not be the case.

LORD SANDERSON

I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition that as far as we understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, we are in favour of it, but we are not quite sure we do altogether understand it. Of course, we are strongly in favour of no child under the age of twelve being employed, and I gather that is what the noble Lord wants—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Hear, hear.

LORD SANDERSON

Whether by means of by-laws or no by-laws. I cannot quite understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, objects so strongly to that. I should be grateful if he would explain more fully why he thinks it is going to destroy the whole structure of this part of the Bill.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

May I supplement what the noble Viscount has said by stating what I understand is the reason local authorities should have the power of making these by-laws? It is to meet cases where parents have to go out to work and have to leave their children behind them. I understand that by-laws have only been made by fourteen authorities in the past, and of those there were five in Kent and two in Nottinghamshire. These by-laws apply only to employment in hop-picking, light farming, or gardening during the school holidays. The idea is that the parents who have to go hop-picking and to work of that kind shall not have to leave their children behind. Two other authorities who have passed these by-laws are in Devonshire. Tiverton permits children to be employed by their parents in shops and in the delivery of newspapers, milk and light parcels, and also in agriculture and gardening work. In those cases by-laws were only allowed after inquiry had shown that the circumstances in those rural areas were such that children were already being employed by their parents in those occupations without detriment to their health. I therefore hope the noble Lord will reconsider the question from that aspect.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really consequential. It leaves out the power to make by-laws authorising the employment of children before the commencement of school hours. I do not think children under twelve ought to be employed in any place before school hours.

Amendment moved— Page 38, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I think this Amendment has a much wider application than the noble Lord thinks. The clause begins by saying that "No child under the age of twelve years shall be employed." It seems to me that all these provisions apply to children under twelve. I may be mistaken but I would like to hear the views of some lawyer in the House who is able to construe a, Parliamentary Bill better than I can. In view of the difficulty I would suggest to the noble Lord that he leaves this Amendment over until the Report stage. The Amendment that has already been passed may have consequences that we do not see at the moment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAIVI

That does not mean that you are going back on the other Amendment?

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

No, it does not. But I am inclined to think that it has consequences that will lead to considerable amendment of the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHANI

I quite agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49:

Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of children.

49.—(1) A local authority may make bylaws with respect to the employment of children, and any restriction contained in the by-laws shall have effect in addition to the restrictions contained in the last preceding section.

(2) By-laws so made may distinguish between children of different ages and sexes and different localities, trades, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions—

1. (a) for modifying any restriction contained in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the said section, so far as such modification is authorised by the subsection in question;
2. (b) for prohibiting absolutely the employment of children in any specified occupation;
3. (c) for prescribing—
1. (i) the age below which children are not to be employed;
2. (ii) the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which, and the times of day at which, they may be employed;
3. (iii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;
4. (iv) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;
5. (v) any other conditions to he observed in relation to their employment.

(3) No by-law under this section shall prevent a child taking part in an entertainment under and in accordance with the provisions of a licence granted and in force under this Part of this Act.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 49. The noble Lord said: This is also consequential. It conflicts with Clause 48. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 49.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

Unless it is decided that "no child," wherever the phrase occurs, means "no child under twelve" it is not consequential.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I quite see that.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Surely the Amendment to strike out Clause 49 cannot possibly be said to be consequential.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I forgot for the moment that the definition of child includes persons up to the age of fourteen years. I do not like the clause but I will leave the matter for the moment, at any rate until we reach the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 49:

Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.

".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of eighteen years, but not being children.

(2) By-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes, and different localities, trade, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions for prescribing—

1. (i) the number of hours in each day or in each week for which and the times of day at which they may be employed;
2. (ii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;
3. (iii) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;
4. (iv) any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—

1. (a) employment in or about the delivery, collection, or transport of goods except in the capacity of van boy, errand boy or messenger;
2. (b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employed in any capacity as aforesaid;
3. (c) employment in the building or engineering trades, not being employment in any such capacity as aforesaid;
4. (d) employment in agriculture;
5. (e) employment in domestic service except as non-resident daily servant;

provided that this section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament."

The noble Viscount said: I shall be very brief explaining my Amendment because just over a year ago your Lordships passed without a Division the Second Reading of a Bill which I introduced, the contents of which were substantially the same as my Amendment. There is a gap between children of school age and adults who are employed in industry. Juveniles between the ages of fourteen and eighteen do not have adequate protection in unregulated trades. The clause which I propose only deals with certain classes of juvenile workers such as those in the ice-cream trade, programme sellers, van boys, and billiard markers. These juvenile workers do not belong to any union and they cannot have their case adequately stated in public. In order to facilitate acceptance of the clause I propose I have excluded from it agricultural workers, domestic servants and shop assistants. I do not think it is necessary to-day to restate what I said a year ago—namely, that large numbers of juveniles work excessively long hours at present—eight, ten and even twelve hours a day. There is no dispute about that. The question arises whether the right way of dealing with it is by by-law. I may say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office, speaking in another place when this Amendment was brought forward there, said that that method was the best. There is a precedent for it in the Act dealing with street selling by juveniles.

The Bill which I introduced was drafted in consultation with the Home Office. As I have said, your Lordships just over a year ago agreed in principle to this proposal without a Division. In 1926 Lord Desborough and the Earl of Plymouth, speaking for the Government of the day, announced that the Government contemplated introducing this very principle at an early date. In 1929 the Leader of the Conservative Party said that if returned to power his Party would deal with this particular matter. The County Councils Association passed a resolution approving the proposal. There was a committee set up to enquire into the matter, and by 23 to 5 they supported the proposal. Speaking only the other day the Home Secretary said: I do not propose to controvert anything that has been said on the merits of this proposal,…I agree with the ease that has been made out,…Evils do exist and remedies ought to be applied. So, my Lords, every Party has given pledges that this matter should be dealt with.

Perhaps it is not necessary for me to deal with hypothetical objections, but I may point out that I have added at the end of my clause the proviso: that this section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. That means that if your Lordships accept this Amendment to-day it will not cost a single penny. There are precedents for that proviso in two Bills which have been recently introduced by the Government. In the Sunday Entertainments Bill which is now being considered in another place there is a clause which says: This section … shall … extend to any borough or county district to which it may be extended by an order laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, and approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament. In the Finance Bill this year there is a clause dealing with the coming into operation of the Land Value Tax, and in that clause it is set out that that particular proposal shall not come into operation until such date as Parliament may hereafter determine. In adding my proviso therefore I am fortified by two precedents in Bills now before Parliament introduced by the Government. The reason it is so important to deal with these juveniles is that they are at the formative stage of life. If between the ages of fourteen and eighteen they work ten or twelve hours a day they cannot attend continuation classes and cannot get recreation, and their whole character may be ruined. I hope that your Lordships will reaffirm to-day the decision you came to a year ago.

Amendment moved— After Clause 49 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Astor.)

LORD BANBUBY OF SOUTHAM

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It is the very worst thing we can do at the present moment. What the clause proposes is that a girl or boy of seventeen should only work in such occupations and at such times as the local authority may determine. We all know what was said of the late Earl Inchcape in obituary notices. I think it was at the age of sixteen that he worked up to ten o'clock at night and sometimes longer, and we know what was the result. At the present moment we do not want these boys and girls in clubs. What we want to do is to induce them to work hard and try to restore the prosperity which we have lost, partly because there has been too much desire to have a good time in clubs and other places, where they only get into mischief.

LORD SANDERSON

I want to say a few words in support of this Amendment on behalf of the Opposition, although it is not exactly the Amendment we should like to see put in the Bill. We should like to have a clause in the Bill definitely laying down a maximum forty-eight-hour week for young people. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will, I am sure, forgive me if I say that we can only regard his Amendment as second-best. The noble Viscount has spoken so often in your Lordships' House on this subject, and, if I may say so, with such eloquence, that I cannot help thinking that he himself may regard this Amendment as only second-best. We do not agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs that the local authorities are the best authorities to regulate hours. We would rather have it done directly by the State. That is why we support the Amendment only rather half-heartedly. We doubt whether the Amendment will be effectively carried out by local authorities. There are good local authorities and there are backward local authorities. A good many local authorities are, I think, in some respects rather like your Lordships' House—how can I put it?—perhaps a little opposed to change. Many of them will not ask for power to make by-laws and the danger, therefore, is that very little may be done. We are anxious that something should be done, and we hope that what I call the more progressive local authorities may make by-laws and that some of the less progressive ones may, in time, follow their good example, so that something may be done through this Amendment to alleviate the very serious position of these young people.

I support the Amendment in so far as I hope it may be effective on grounds of economy. The Government is very fond of economy now, and members of the Government talk a great deal about economy. I think if the powers given by this proposed clause were effectively administered by local authorities you would have economy. You would have economy in human power and economy in human life. More of these children would have a chance of growing up to be useful citizens and fewer of them would grow up stunted, unhealthy, uneducated, and untrained. Fewer of them would be likely to be a charge on the State in later years, and so you would have economy in that way. I also support the Amendment on grounds of humanity. It is not fair that these young people should be made to work these long hours, much longer in many cases than those of adult workers. I am sorry the noble Viscount has put in the proviso at the end of his clause. We should much rather have seen the clause in the Bill without it. When are we to get the Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament? We give our support to the Amendment in the interests of the young people.

LORD GAINFORD

If I may voice the views of many in the quarter of the House in which I sit with regard to this Amendment, may I say that we believe there is a consensus of opinion in the country absolutely in favour of some safeguard for children between fourteen and eighteen who are now in unregulated employment? The cost, I believe, may be almost infinitesimal under proper administration. There has been Commission after Commission sitting in connection with this subject and they have all been satisfied that to exclude boys and girls between twelve and eighteen from being safeguarded is detrimental to the interests of the children as well as detrimental to the State. The grievance is really a very considerable one. There are about 118,000 in this country now working in these employments over forty-eight hours and 7,624, according to the last statistics, who are working over sixty-six hours and up to seventy-two hours a week. When 95 per cent. of the adult workers of this country are at present working forty-eight hours and under it seems monstrous that we should hesitate to safeguard these children from being detained in these employments and exploited for hours which run up to seventy and in some cases even ninety.

It is impossible under such conditions for these boys—take, for instance, a van boy—to attend any continuation school. They are employed late on Saturday nights and in many cases all Sunday. All that is suggested by this Amendment is that local authorities, where they feel there is a case for passing by-laws to limit this sort of employment to a reasonable number of hours, should be permitted to do so. I think you can really trust the local authorities. I fear this matter was excluded from the provisions of the Bill only with a view to trying to secure economy. We are all out for economy and I am generally for non-interference by the State with the regulation of hours where you have adults who can combine and look after their own interests. But these children cannot look after their own interests and the result of this undue exploitation is that their health is impaired and their characters suffer, and they are refused the possibilities of recreation and of attending evening continuation schools.

With regard to the cost those who have some knowledge of education authorities are aware that there are attendance officers appointed who look after the school attendance of the children. These officers have in most cases duties not only in connection with the attendance of the children at school, but also in seeing that they are not employed in a certain number of employments, such as street trading and, I think, in the theatres. These officers can follow up the children, and the local authorities, without spending extra money, can see that there is no case in which the child is allowed to work longer hours than the by-laws permit. I regret the provision which has been inserted in the noble Viscount's clause which would make it necessary for Parliament to pass a Resolution before the clause comes into operation. Apparently the noble Viscount desired to meet the present situation in connection with expenditure. I think there will be little expenditure required and I hope the Government will see the reasonable necessity of protecting these children who are unable to protect themselves.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

It would not have been necessary for any- one else to speak from the Episcopal Bench on this subject but for the comparative accident of duties which has deprived the House of the opportunity of hearing the right rev. Prelate who has won your attention and confidence so fully under the title of Bishop of Southwark He has to-day become Bishop of Winchester and thereon vacated his seat until he can take it again. In his absence I think it is right that someone should Rpeak along the line he would with still further knowledge have followed. Many of your Lordships will have seen the letter which he wrote to The Times newspaper in its issue of Saturday last. What has already been said should have made it evident that the area dealt with in this Amendment is certainly large enough to claim the attention of Parliament and to be dealt with by legislation. There are something like half a million boys and girls affected by this proposal, and I think few of us can contemplate with anything like calm the thought that at any time there are half a million boys and girls subject to the kind of pressure that is brought upon them, especially in these days, to undertake any kind of labour they can get irrespective either of its quality or the hours it may occupy.

Sometimes the hours worked by these young persons amount to 72 and more in the week. That is economically most wasteful, partly because it involves the waste of a great deal of the educational facilities that have been provided. It becomes entirely impossible for this large section of the younger population to take advantage of provision which has been made for education, and we are aware that in many cases that educational plant could be used much more fully than it is at present. There are at present a great many unoccupied places in the evening and continuation schools which will never be occupied as long as it is possible for young persons to be employed in these trades with as little restriction as there is at the present time. It is uneconomical, too, in the great waste of human material involved in it. While one finds every now and then someone of quite outstanding vitality like Lord Inchcape, who may work his way through and possibly conceive himself the better for having been subjected to such conditions, the number of wasted lives through having been subjected to those conditions is something which makes one wonder whether the cost is worth while. This is one of those points upon which everyone agrees that legislation should be passed, but, when it comes to the point, everyone says, "Not now." There are some of us who are approaching despair on the subject and who see in this Bill an opportunity of obtaining something which has been universally welcomed so long as the welcome did not involve responsibility for action. I hope that your Lordships may wipe away that reproach from our recent legislative history.

LORD ASKWITH

I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford, and also of the most rev. Prelate supporting the letter which the Lord Bishop of Southwark, now the Lord Bishop of Winchester, published in The Times on Saturday. This debate reminds me of the discussions some years ago in regard to sweated industries, the difficulties and dangers of which your Lordships were so forward in attacking. There are movements throughout the country for continuation and adult schools in order to teach these lads and to give them some trade for later life; yet, if they are exhausted and tired after their hours of work, it is impossible for them to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. Then there are those boys who, as everyone knows, had not the control of fathers or elder brothers owing to the exigencies of the War and who, as quite small children, were allowed to run more wild than they should. There is an opportunity here of getting them under some sort of control, giving them some sort of education, and stopping to some extent their acquiring a knowledge of things which it would be better that they should learn at a later age. By giving them reasonable hours, too, they would be able to have their proper sleep without being exhausted too much. No doubt the vitality of youth is very great but there are those, who have to go into these employments with long hours because the money is needed in the home, who are not fit for these long hours and who are not fit for occupations with no regulations governing the terms of their employment. I do not support this Amendment for any sentimental reasons but as a good thing for the employment of this country. It has been long wanted by many of the best houses in this country, it has been moved here year after year, and it is the beginning of a better outlook for young people that they should not be allowed to run wild.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

May I say a word to endorse the appeal made to the noble Viscount to consent to this Amendment being included in the Bill? After all that has been so eloquently and truly said about the great danger to the community of allowing the excessive employment of these young persons, I was surprised at the extraordinary mildness of the Amendment itself. I assume that the purpose of the noble Viscount's proviso is not to remove apprehensions which are born of the desire of economy, but to meet the point which was so forcibly made in another place that this was not the time in any sort of way to hamper the freedom of industry when we were trying to recover our position. It was urged with very great force that, while there was entire agreement as to the principle of this Bill, it was doubtful whether this was the time, and much emphasis was laid upon the necessity of our industries being free to use whatever method was in their power to recover their position. The object of that proviso is to recognise that difficulty and to see what ought to be the principle embodied in this Bill, but at the same time in the special circumstances of the present time delaying the operation of this clause until Parliament considers that a condition of affairs has arisen in the country which will make it plainly advisable to do so. There is a great deal to be said for that and I agree that the principle should be in the Bill so that, when the proper time comes, it will not be necessary for a new Bill to be brought in. Exerything will be in existence in the present Bill and it is left for Parliament to judge of the expediency of the time to put it into operation. I am expressing no opinion of my own about the value of the proviso. I would rather that the Amendment had been accepted by the Government or pressed on its own merits, and I merely call attention to that proviso having regard to the long discussions and Divisions in another place. I hope that it will strengthen the plea which some of us have addressed to the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

This Amendment and the speeches which have been made in support of it have placed me in a very difficult position. I agree with everything that has been said about the scandal of the over-employment of these young people and I feel that it is a reproach to the Governments of recent years that this question has not been dealt with before now. The most rev. Primate has stated the reasons which induced the Government to oppose an Amendment identical with the Amendment before your Lordships except for the proviso. It was considered that the industrial situation of the country to-day was such that it would be inadvisable to add what would be regarded, either with foundation or without foundation, by industry as another of the many burdens which they have to bear in these very difficult times. The noble Viscount, who has moved this Amendment, has added a proviso to the Amendment as it was moved in the Committee stage and on Report stage in another place. He does not propose that this Amendment, if it were carried, should come into operation when this measure becomes an Act of Parliament. In its present form his Amendment is no more than a declaration that this is an urgent question and that it ought to be dealt with as soon as the industrial position of the country will permit, but the Amendment will remain ineffective until a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament has been passed.

The most rev. Prelate said that a Resolution of the House of Commons would carry into effect the Amendment as it appears upon the Paper. When this question comes to be dealt with by Parliament, it will not be dealt with exactly on the lines of the proposals embodied in the Amendment of the noble Viscount. His Amendment leaves outside its scope a very large proportion of that half million of young people who work in unregulated occupations. When Parliament does seriously deal with this question I think it will include within the provisions of that legislation a very considerable number of those excluded by the Amendment now before your Lordships. I do not for a moment believe that when the question is dealt with it will be dealt with by the simple form of a Resolution of the two Houses of Parliament incorporating the Amendment as part of the Statute law of the country. I think it would be very undesirable, when the question is dealt with, after all these years of prevarication and evasion, for Parliament not to deal with it in a thorough and statesmanlike way.

I said when I rose that I am in an extremely embarrassing position, because all my sympathies are naturally with something being done to deal with what I think I might call a national scandal the scandalous employment for such long hours of such a large number of young people, who are deprived of leisure, of physical recreation, and of mental study to a very large extent also. The reason why the Government opposed such an Amendment in another place was, as His Grace the Primate has said, that they think that the industrial position of the country, at the moment, is not favourable. Indeed I have heard it said that if the Government had incorporated such an Amendment in the Bill, so that it would become operative with the coming into effect of the Bill, very probably the Bill itself would not have got through the House of Commons. Whether that be so or not I do not know. Of course, the proviso added to the Amendment since the Amendment was raised in another place has to some extent removed, or at any rate lessened, that objection, because I think Parliament can be trusted not to pass these Resolutions unless it thought that the time was favourable. Really I hardly know what to say of it. I am instructed, of course, to oppose the Amendment, but perhaps my sympathies are overriding my loyalty in this matter, and in view of the proviso I really do not see that any immediate harm, at any rate, can be done by accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment. If it be the wish of your Lordships that that should be done I certainly shall not go to the extent of opposing it.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Before the debate closes I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount upon the eventual decision which he came to in his speech. I watched and followed him with some fear as to which side of the fence he was going to come down upon, and I am very glad that his good feeling and his better judgment have brought him down in favour of this Amendment, be- cause although the proviso, which we regret is attached to it, means that it will not become operative at once, Parliament when it comes to the decision to bring this clause into operation will no doubt feel that it ought to be extended as the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, himself suggested. To get this Amendment incorporated in the Bill, even in the terms in which it is now drafted, is a distinct step forward, and I feel that the afternoon has not been wasted if we make this decision now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Amendment of law with respect, to street trading]:

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not know whether it is of any use my moving to leave out this clause. My Amendment is consequential upon other Amendments, and I think I had better wait until the Report stage.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Penalties and legal proceedings]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 39, leave out ("it thinks") and insert ("they think").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 55:

Provisions as to juveniles taking part in, and being trained for, dangerous performances.

55.—(1) No boy under sixteen years of age and no girl under eighteen years of age shall take part in any public performance in which his or her life or limbs are endangered and every person who causes or procures such a boy or girl or, being his or her parent or guardian, allows him or her to take part in such a performance, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, not exceeding fifty pounds, and the First Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as if amongst the offences therein specified, there was included any offence under this subsection:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsectian (1), after "No boy", to insert "or girl". The noble Lord said: This clause which stands in the Bill reproduces, I believe, the existing law, and provides that for certain classes of stage performances, described in the Bill as endangering life and limb, the age at which boys may take part is sixteen years, whereas girls are prohibited from taking part until they are eighteen years of age. I am not quite sure why that change was made in the law. It is not a change of very old standing. I believe that it does not really serve any practical purpose, and it has inflicted considerable hardship upon a hardworking and deserving class of the comimunity.

I imagine that why this differentiation was put in was that such performers were considered to run the risk of danger to health—danger of rupture or hernia. I do not know what authority there is for that view, but certainly one eminent medical authority has expressed the contrary view. Sir William Arbuthnot Lane expressed the view, at a meeting of members of the House of Commons, only the other day, that training for such performances had definitely a value from the health point of view, particularly in the case of girls, provided the training began sufficiently early. The danger, of course, is that if the training is left too late the muscles are apt to be set, and I have it from the Variety Artistes' Federation that the healthiest members of the profession are those who have had the advantage of training of this kind in their youth. This sort of work runs in families. You have families of acrobats, and the training begins as soon as the children can walk. They tumble off chairs, and train from their earliest days, and the important point is that the training is not complete until these people can make their appearance on the stage.

A very important part of the training is between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, and consists in appearing in public. At present, as the law stands, a boy can appear at sixteen, and a girl has to wait until eighteen, before she can appear and be fully trained in the profession, and that has proved a very severe handicap, under which foreign artistes do not labour, because there is no such restriction in their case. It has proved a difficulty to artistes in this country.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 15, after ("boy") insert ("or girl").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I think I can satisfy the noble Lord if he will let me speak now.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Does the noble Lord accept my Amendment?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Yes, I accept the Amendment. The reason for differentiating between the boys and the girls was that in the 'nineties, which some of us can remember, there were a great many cases of women coming down in parachutes, and a Dangerous Performances Act was passed in 1897 to prevent that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 43, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("and no girl under eighteen years of age").— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56:

Licences for training juveniles to take part in dangerous performances.

(3) A licence under this section shall specify the place or places at which the person in question is to be trained and shall embody such conditions as are, in the opinion of the court, necessary for the protection of the said person, but a licence shall not be refused if the court is satisfied that the said person is fit to be trained and that proper provision has been made to secure his health and kind treatment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "fit," to insert "and willing."

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I accept that.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 21 after ("fit") insert ("and willing").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Savings]:

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to the clause: (4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act and any by-laws made thereunder, a child taking part as a choir boy in a religious service or in a choir practice for a religious service, shall not, whether he receives any reward or not, be deemed to be employed. The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to exempt boys employed in choirs. The only exemption is to boys taking part in religious services and choir practices for religious services.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61:

Saving for British Broadcasting Corporation.

61. The provisions of Part IV of this Act which impose restrictions on the employment of children and the taking part by children in entertainments, and the provisions of any by-laws made thereunder, shall not apply in relation to a child who has attained the age of twelve years taking part in a performance, whether of the nature of an entertainment or not, which is being broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation, so long as the public are not admitted thereto on payment.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 14, leave out ("Part IV") and insert ("this Part").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 61. The noble Lord said: Why should the British Broadcasting Corporation have an exception made for them? I do not know that they are better than any other corporation, and I do not understand why they should be exempted, unless it is that the Government are going to make a little money out of them, which, of course, does not seem to me to be an argument worth considering.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 61.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

This exemption favouring the British Broadcasting Corporation was made after discussion in another place. The B.B.C. have informed the London County Council that, in operating under this clause, they will not act in any way contrary to the spirit of the rules followed by the London County Council in licensing children. The chief grounds for the adoption of this exemption by the Government in another place were that there was not the same possibility of interference with the children's education, or the same possibility of harmful associations, or the possibility of employment for long hours; and the small use that the B.B.C. can really make of child performers in itself almost eliminates this last possibility.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

There does not seem any particular reason for exempting them, and broadcasting generally takes place late at night, and I suppose that children may be employed then.

LORD DANESFORT

I hope the Government will explain this a little further. The British Broadcasting Corporation might be employing children, possibly in dangerous occupations, in a way which would not be allowed to anyone else. I do not understand what a "performance" by children for the B.B.C means. How do you broadcast a "performance"? I am asking for information; I am rather ignorant about it.

LORD GAINFORD

As one of the governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation perhaps I may reply. There are certain plays and certain periods of the day which are given up to children, when it is advisable that the child's voice should be heard by the children. Your Lordships are all aware, that there is a "Children's Hour," which comes on just before the 6 o'clock news item. During that period there are occasions when children can be heard on the listening set with advantage to other children, and, so long as the public are not admitted, there cannot, in the judgment of the governors of the Corporation, be any harm under proper conditions in children being admitted into the studio with their parents. That is the only exception that is asked for, and it is asked for in the interests of the listening public, which now includes nearly every home in the land.

On Question, Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 agreed to.

Clause 63:

Amendment of s. 1 of the principal Act.

63.—(1) For subsections (1) to (3) of Section one of the principal Act (which relate to notices to be given by persons receiving infants for reward) there shall be substituted the following subsections:— (1) Where a person undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of nine years apart from its parents, or having no parents, he shall give notice in writing thereof to the local authority—

1. (a) in the case of an infant not already in his care, not less than forty-eight hours before he receives the infant; and
2. (b) in the case of an infant already in his care without reward, within forty-eight hours after entering into the undertaking:

Provided that upon a charge in respect of a failure to give such notice as aforesaid, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove— (i) that the infant was received and retained by him for a period not exceeding forty-eight hours, or

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had given notice to move, in subsection (1) (1) (a), after "care," to insert: being the first infant proposed to be received by him for reward in the dwelling occupied or proposed to be occupied for the purpose, not less than seven days before he receives the infant; (b) in the case of any other infant not already in his care,

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am prepared to accept this.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 13, after ("care") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

The next Amendment is consequential upon the one just agreed to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 15, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(c)").—(the Earl of Malmesbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out proviso (i).

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept this.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 21, leave out paragraph (i).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 [Prohibition of anonymous advertisements offering to undertake care of infants]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept Lord Askwith's Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 30, after ("disclosed") insert ("therein").—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Raising the age of "young persons"]:

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had Amendments on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), to substitute "sixteen" for "seventeen" and to leave out all words after "seventeen years." The noble Lord said: It was agreed earlier in the afternoon that I should take some of my other Amendments on this clause. I prefer not to move these Amendments now, but to move them on Report stage.

Clauses 68 to 78 agreed to.

Clause 79:

Provisions as to local authorities.

(2) A county council may arrange with the councils of urban districts (whether boroughs or not) within the county which are local education authorities for elementary education for the exercise and performance by those councils within their respective areas of such of the powers and duties of the county council under this Act and on such terms as to payment and otherwise, as may be agreed; and, in default of any such arrangement being made, the Secretary of State may, on the application either of the county council or of the council of any such urban district, make a scheme determining whether any and, if so, which of the said powers and duties of the county council are to be exercised and performed by the urban district council, and on what terms. An arrangement or scheme under this subsection may provide for the exercise and performance of powers and duties by the urban district council either instead of, or as agents for, the county council, but notwithstanding anything in any such arrangement or scheme every county council shall remain accountable to the Secretary of State for all contributions paid in their county by parents and other persons in respect of persons committed to the care of local authorities or ordered to be sent to approved schools.

(6) A local authority may borrow for the purposes of this Act—

1. (a) in the case of the London County Council, under and in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and in the case of any other county council, under and in accordance with Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as amended by the Local Government Act, 1929, and
796
2. (b) in the case of the council of a county borough or urban district, as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926.

THE EAEL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out: and, in default of any such arrangement being made, the Secretary of State may, on the application either of the county council or of the council of any such urban district, make a scheme determining whether any and. if so, which of the said powers and duties of the county council are to be exercised and performed by the urban district council, and on what terms.

The noble Earl said: I am not quite sure what the view of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is in regard to this Amendment but it seems to me a perfectly reasonable one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 38, leave out from ("agreed") to ("An") in line 2 on page 58.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I am content to accept this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EAEL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or scheme". The noble Earl said: This is consequential on the previous Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 2, leave out ("or scheme").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (6) and to insert as a new subsection: (6) For the purposes of this Act a local authority may levy a rate not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound in any one year. The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is an important one in the interests of economy. The clause provides that "a local authority may borrow for the purposes of this Act." I propose to leave out the first subsection and to insert the new subsection which appears upon the Paper. I think the present time is very inopportune to give local authorities either power to borrow to an unlimited amount, or power to spend money to an unlimited extent. I observe that in answer to a question in another place a few days ago it was stated that in 1913 the expenditure of local authorities was £105,000,000 odd, whereas the expenditure in 1931–1932 is estimated at £318,000,000, or about three times the amount. In those circumstances I think we ought to put a limit upon the expenditure. I also notice in The Times to-day that the debt of local authorities has more than doubled during the same period. To-day it stands at £1,200,000,000—actually double the total in 1923, and, I believe, nearly three times the total of 1913. Therefore I think it would be rash to give to the local authorities power to spend an unlimited amount.

When I was a member of another place I had on several occasions to move limiting Amendments, and I was always successful in carrying them. I hope I shall be successful in carrying this Amendment. It seems to me most important at the present time not to spend more money than we possibly can. By giving local authorities power to raise a one-halfpenny rate that should be quite sufficient for the purpose, and it will prevent them borrowing, which is a very fatal thing to do at the present time. A spendthrift who has exceeded his income goes to moneylenders and borrows, and that is exactly what, apparently, is contemplated by local authorities under this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

This Amendment raises again the question which we discussed at some length in the earlier-part of to-day as to the likelihood of very considerable expenditure being incurred by local authorities in the building of approved schools, the alteration of such buildings, and the like. I need not trouble your Lordships by going over the arguments I put forward on that occasion, when I endeavoured to assure your Lordships that there was no likelihood of any considerable increase, if any increase at all, in the expenditure on that account. The number of committals to these approved schools may be slightly increased, but under the Bill the period of detention will be lessened, and therefore it is estimated—I will give the figures later—that there will be a saving upon the expenditure on these institutions. I may say that this provision— although I know that this argument will not appeal to such a Radical as the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, who is always in favour of not following precedent and making innovations—really does not propose anything new. As I pointed out earlier this afternoon there is power to borrow under the Children Act.

In the first place, then, there is little or no likelihood of any increased expenditure falling on local authorities under this particular head. In regard to that part of the Amendment limiting the amount which can be raised under this Bill to one halfpenny in the pound— I hope the remark will not be regarded as offensive; I certainly do not mean it to be—that is an altogether impracticable proposal. The noble Lord when he put down his Amendment evidently had no idea at all of the cost of the various services which already fall upon local authorities. For instance, if I remember rightly, the total amount that is raised now by the local authorities for all the purposes under the Children Act is about £200,000 a year.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Will the noble Viscount give the capital expenditure involved?

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

That will be included because the interest and sinking fund payments have to be met out of annual expenditure. I am sorry I have not got the exact figures but I think the total is something like £200,000 a year. Therefore a halfpenny rate would be ridiculously inadequate to meet the present commitments of the local authorities. I was asked on the Second Reading of the Bill if I could give any estimate of the increased cost which the obligations imposed by this Bill would place upon the local authorities. I was not in a position at that moment to do that, but I promised to have the matter looked into, and that has been done. I told your Lordships, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that before a certain Amendment was made in the Bill it was expected that the savings that would be effected and the increased costs imposed would result in a saving of about £8,000. A certain Amendment was made in another place which was estimated to cost about £8,000. Therefore, so far as cost to the Exchequer is concerned, it will remain just about what it is at the present time.

It was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and the statement was repeated by a noble Lord this afternoon, that the London County Council had estimated that the increased duties imposed by this measure would cost them about £10,000 a year. I do not know how they have arrived at an estimate like that, but it is a very absurd estimate. I will tell you in a moment that the total increased cost to all the local authorities in the country will not amount to half that sum. The best estimate that can be framed at the present time of the ultimate annual expenditure out of local rates is as follows: the additional expenditure on approved schools will be £28,000, but there will be saving on Borstal and other items of £49,000. Therefore, on these items there will be a net reduction of expenditure of £21,000. The placing of responsibility on the local authorities as fit persons to deal with certain classes of children will involve additional expenditure. That is estimated at £25,000. The net reduction of expenditure was £21,000. The additional expenditure is £25,000. Therefore, the net additional expenditure by local authorities is estimated at £4,000. If that is spread over the whole of the local authorities of the country I think it would be very difficult indeed to find what effect it would have upon the local rates. It would be perfectly negligible. I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment. The proposal to leave out subsection (6) is evidently based upon a fear—a fear that is not likely to be realized—namely, that additional expense will be incurred in the provision of expensive palaces for housing these children. I can only repeat what I have said on that head. The limiting of the power of local authorities to levy a rate not exceeding a halfpenny would bring the activities of the local authorities under the provisions of the existing law and under this Bill to futility.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I think it extremely important at the present moment that there should be some limit to expenditure. As the noble Viscount says the local authorities only want £4,000 there seems to be no harm in depriving them of the opportunity of spending more money.

LORD JESSEL

I cannot quite reconcile the statement of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal with a statement from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office. He said, according to a report by the Education Committee of the London County Council: It is clear that in the case of an important local authority there will be not only no saving but a not inconsiderable burden. We are at present in consultation with that local authority to see whether, if not in this Bill, by some other administrative action we can prevent the effect of the passage of the Bill being any increase in present expenditure. There seems to be a divergence of view between the noble Viscount and the Home Office. The report of the Education Committee of the London County Council goes on to say that a letter dated February 17, 1932, was received from the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which it was stated regarding children in Home Office schools: The estimated cost of maintenance per head for 1932–33 is 28s., but the flat rate has been fixed at 15s., because the Treasury over a period of years has paid on the aggregate more than 50 per cent, of the total expenditure. In the course of the year, however, it is anticipated that a balance will be effected in the total contributions made from local and national sources and, saving a material increase in prices and wages, it is intended that the flat rate should be reduced to 14s. in April, 1933. Then in the report of the Finance Committee of the London County Council there is this statement: As regards the anticipated fall from 15s. to 14s. a week, referred to by the Secretary of State, in the flat rate fixed under the financial scheme relating to the maintenance of children in Home Office schools which is estimated to effect a saving to the Council of £3,000 a year, it would appear that the effect of the proposed reduction on the estimated additional annual expenditure involved in consequence of more young persons being committed to approved schools would be to reduce the figure of £10,000 by £666. I will not weary the House by further quotations from this report, but I must say that I cannot understand how these two sets of figures can be reconciled. You have also to take into account the extra cost of medical attendance and the extra cost of educating these children through their being kept longer in these institutions. We have been told over and over again on these occasions that there will be no extra cost or very little extra cost. I remember that Mr. Fisher, when introducing his Education Bill in the House of Commons, gave certain estimates for elementary education. I cannot remember the exact figures, but those figures have been more than doubled since. In the circumstances I hope my noble friend will succeed in getting some limit set to the expenditure which may be incurred under this Bill.

LORD HANWORTH

May I point out a difficulty in accepting this Amendment? It is one which I do not think the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal made quite clear. I am always in favour of any clause which would restrict the powers of local authorities and make for economy, but I would point out that the figures given by the noble Viscount had reference to general expenditure. What we are dealing with is really a whole body of Acts and if you look at the last clause you will sec that when you have passed this Bill, it takes its place as one with the Children and Young Persons Acts from 1908 to 1913, and there-afterwards from 1908 to 1932, so that you have a great body of Acts and this Act is to be construed as one with the principal Act. Therefore if you were to put in a clause as suggested by Lord Banbury, a limiting clause allowing only the spending of a halfpenny in the pound

Resolved in the affirmative; and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (7), to insert: (8) a local authority, or a committee to whom any powers of a local authority under in any one year, you might be hampering the whole system of the Acts and without a good deal more detail it would be quite impossible to put this clause in for the purpose of saying that the expenditure under this particular Bill was restricted. That is the real difficulty in accepting a simple clause such as that suggested. It needs much more consideration. I find myself unable, much as I should like to support Lord Banbury of Southam, to say that this is an effective Amendment for carrying out the point he desires. I confess that the figures given by the Lord Privy Seal, which cover and deal with a great many more Acts outside the present one, do not seem to clarify the situation or answer the question which has been put.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My first Amendment is to stop borrowing. My noble and learned friend has no objection to that, I suppose!

LORD HANWORTH

Oh, no.

On Question, Whether subsection (6) shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Hereford, V.	Hindlip, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)	Mersey, V.	Luke, L.
		Mamhead, L.
Wellington, D.	Alvingham, L.	Mildmay of Flete, L.
	Askwith, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Salisbury, M.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Rhayader, L.
	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Rochester, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]		Sanderson, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Snell, L.
Munster, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Onslow, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Plymouth, E.	Gainford, L.	Stanmore, L.
	Hampton, L.	Stonehaven, L.
Allendale, V.	Hanworth, L.	Teynham, L.
Esher, V.	Hay, L.(E. Kinnoull.)	Treowen, L.
		Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Doncaster, E., (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Bertie of Thame, V.	Danesfort, L.
		Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Jessel, L. [Teller.]
Morton, E.		Redesdale, L.
	Conway of Allington, L.	Strachie, L.

this Act have been delegated, may by resolution empower the clerk or the chief education officer of the authority to exercise in the name of the authority in any case which appears to him to be one of urgency any powers of the authority or, as the case may be, of the committee with respect to the institution of proceedings under this Act."

The noble Earl said: I do not desire to waste the time of the House by explaining the Amendment but will simply move it.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

Before the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, rises to move a new clause, which stands in his name on the Paper, may I say that it is unnecessary to incorporate this clause in the Bill because it is the intention of the Secretary of State to enter into arrangements with the local authorities for setting up these advisory committees.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I do not move my Amendment.

Clause 83:

Exchequer grants and expenses of Secretary of State.

83.—(1) There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "Parliament," to insert "such money not to exceed fifty thousand pounds in any one year." The noble Lord said: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. Clause 83 says that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament such sums as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards certain expenses. I would draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Hanworth to the fact that my Amendment was strictly limited to the provision of expenses. At the present time it is absolutely imperative not only that we should incur no fresh expenditure but that we should endeavour to diminish expenditure. I hope that the Government will accept my Amendment, especially as on the Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, told us that the result of this Bill, as far as the taxpayer was concerned, would be that it would cost him practically nothing, any expenses being met by savings. I have heard that so often that I do not always believe that those savings are going to be realised but, assuming that is correct, what earthly harm can there be in accepting my Amendment, which allows expenditure up to fifty thousand pounds a year?

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 20, after ("Parliament") insert ("such money not to exceed fifty thousand pounds in any one year").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

There can be a most unearthly harm in accepting the Amendment. The figures which I gave with regard to the cost of the approved schools and the like referred only to approved schools. The present annual cost to the Exchequer—that is one-half the total cost—in connection with industrial and reformatory schools in England, Wales and Scotland is £260,000 a year. The Exchequer pays one half and local authorities one half. There is therefore an expenditure of £260,000 a year by local authorities on these institutions. The effect of the Amendment providing that the Exchequer contribution shall not exceed £50,000 a year would be that the Exchequer would save £210,000 a year and that would be added to the expenditure of the local authorities, unless four-fifths of these institutions were closed. That would be the practical effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, and your Lordships will see that it is absolutely impossible to accept it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I agree with the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount speaks of the result of this Amendment. First of all, he told us there will be no expenditure on the national Exchequer at all and that the expenditure would be met by savings—

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

That is no increased expenditure. I am now talking about the actual sum expended.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Are there to be no savings?

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

Yes. I gave particulars of them before.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Yes, but if there are to be savings which make good the extra amount expended, there is no harm in providing an extra fifty thousand pounds. Would the noble Lord accept a hundred thousand pounds? My point is that there should be some limit. I would not give a blank cheque to any Government, not even to my noble friend Lord Salisbury if he were in power again. We must fix a limit and, if the noble Viscount thinks fifty thousand pounds too little, I will make it a hundred thousand pounds, but I will go to a Division if I get one man in the lobby to support me. We should not give blank cheques to any Government, whoever they are.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Nothing can exceed the courage of my noble friend nor his love for economy, but he must see that, by merely throwing the burden from the taxpayer on the ratepayer, he does not achieve very much. There is, however, another reason which I would like to point out to my noble friend. He served in the House of Commons much longer than I did and personally I have often called in question the more rigid interpretation of what is called the Privilege of the House of Commons. But, if he wanted to find a flagrant case of breach of Privilege, you could not find one more flagrant than the Amendment of my noble friend, who definitely proposes to limit the power of Parliament to spend the taxpayers' money. The time may come when my noble friend will be able to persuade your Lordships to vary the whole doctrine of Privilege, but as matters stand none of us could follow him in asking your Lordships to make the biggest breach of Privilege which I have seen since I have been in Parliament.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am sorry to differ from my noble friend. My Amendment does not impose any charge but says that a certain sum must not be exceeded and that is not imposing a charge. There is no necessity to put any sum on the taxpayer.

THE MARQUESS OK SALISBURY

You cannot limit it either.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Why not?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

According to Parliamentary Privilege, you cannot limit what the taxpayer can pay.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have done it on several occasions in the House of Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You can do it in the House of Commons.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I defeated the Government upon it in 1912 and I would be glad to do it again. My noble friend will agree with me in this, that we have never agreed with the Commons that we are precluded from dealing with any financial question. On the contrary, we have always held that the Resolution of the House of Commons passed some two or three hundred years ago has never been accepted by this House. I am, therefore, not afraid of a breach of Privilege, and besides the House of Commons have the right to waive their Privilege and have done so over and over again. If I can get anyone to divide with me, I shall divide on the Amendment.

LORD HANWORTH

I hope that my noble friend will not go to a Division on a point like this. If I may say so, he is really confusing two rules. As a very old and distinguished member of the House of Commons he was familiar with the rule in that House that no Amendment of a Finance Bill, or any Bill which imposes a charge upon the taxpayer, can be moved by an independent Member of Parliament. To impose a charge upon the taxpayer the Motion must come from the Front Bench. It is a perfectly clear rule. The noble Lord says that in his Amendment he is not imposing a charge, but he is testing his Amendment by the rule which he knows so well in the House of Commons. Quite a different point arises upon this Amendment, as the noble Marquess has pointed out. The question is whether or not, if this House accepted the Amendment, it would be a breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons. It is the Privilege of the House of Commons to determine how money shall be raised and how it shall be spent. It is true that sometimes they have waived their Privilege, but, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, the question is this: Are we to say how much money shall be raised for this purpose, and how much money shall be spent? I cannot fail to agree with the noble Marquess that that is distinctly and clearly a breach of the Privilege of the House of Commons, and in those circumstances quite a different test must be applied to the Amendment from the rule under which the noble Lord and I have worked together in the House of Commons—a test which is not of compelling force in your Lordships' House.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am sorry to disagree with such a great authority as my noble friend. He says that this Amendment will impose a charge. May I ask him whether he has read the clause? The Bill, as already passed in the House of Commons, does impose a charge, and nothing I am doing now will alter that. All I am doing is to limit that charge. As he knows, anybody in the House of Commons, whether he be a member of the Government or not, can limit that charge, which is all I am doing. The person who can propose a charge is first of all a Privy Councillor. He need not be a member of the Government provided he is a Privy Councillor and has the consent of His Majesty. I have not the consent of His Majesty, and if I were proposing a charge my noble friend would be right. But I am not proposing a charge. All I am now saying is that there shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament a sum not to exceed a certain amount in any one year.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 83 agreed to.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, on behalf of Lord Danesfort, moved, after Clause 83, to insert the following new clause:

Limitation of financial obligations of county councils.

". Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing upon a county council any obligation to erect, provide or alter any building unless at least seventy-five per centum of the cost which would be incurred therein is provided out of Parliamentary funds."

The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to limit the financial responsibility of the county councils, and it relates chiefly to the expenditure involved in Clauses 37 and 43 of the Bill. It will be observed that when introducing the Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, when pressed for information, said: "There is no direct charge upon the taxpayer"; but he added that he was "not in a position to give any estimate as to what is the increased expenditure upon local authorities" if these clauses remained in the Bill. In moving the Financial Resolution in another place the Under-Secretary admitted that under the new arrangement local authorities might sustain loss. That is what we desire to guard against, if possible.

Not only may there be loss, but what is apprehended, in addition, is that by the presence of the new provisions new capital expenditure may be called for, and in some cases without adequate justification, in view of our present financial difficulties. More power is involved in Clauses 37 and 43 than would appear on the surface, and the county councils therefore are fully justified in being apprehensive. The Home Office apparently intimated that there would be no increase in the present grants, which, as Mr. Stanley stated in the House of Commons, are "normally on a fifty-fifty basis." There are many requests and measures for public expenditure which should be put aside for the moment, and the scheme of this Bill, so far as it involves new capital expenditure, in the opinion of certain county councils comes within that category. That is my view, and I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept the new clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause 83, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN This Amendment has evidently been moved under a misapprehension. At the present time the State makes no grant towards the capital expenditure, but 50 per cent, of the annual charges and interest on sinking funds of loans incurred for this purpose. The noble Lord's Amendment is limited to county councils who incur expenditure in the building of these schools. I do not know why other local authorities who have to build schools have been exempted from the noble Lord's desire to confer benefits, but at any rate, as I have pointed out, it is a quite impracticable proposition. With regard to the 75 per cent, that would, of course, upset the whole of the relations between the Exchequer and the local authorities with regard to grants, which are upon a 50 per cent, basis. It is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule: