CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

HL Deb 23 June 1932 vol 85 cc128-83

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1 [Juvenile Courts]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, who had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2) to leave out the words "which is," and to insert "who are," said: My Lords, the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has approached me privately, and asked me not to move the vast number of drafting Amendments I have placed on the Paper, because he promises to introduce a Consolidation Bill in the near future to consolidate this Bill with the Act of 1908 and other enactments. My regret is that this Bill was not brought in as a Consolidation Bill in the first place. The necessity of all these drafting Amendments is that "court" is sometimes treated in the singular and sometimes in the plural. As such an atrocity has been committed the Government should be consistent, and treat "court" as plural all through. As, however, the noble Viscount has appealed to me, I respond to his appeal and do not move my first Amendment.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN)

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for having accepted the suggestion that I made to him, and I want to express the gratitude of the Department to the noble Viscount for having called attention to so many grammatical errors in the Bill. It is intended that there should be a Consolidation Bill. All the noble Viscount's points have been noted and no doubt they will be carried into effect when the Consolidation Bill is produced, and we might expect that it will be freer from grammatical errors than the present Bill is.

Clause 9:

Powers of juvenile court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.

9.—(1) Any local authority, any constable or any authorised person (as defined in this section) who have or has reasonable grounds for believing that a child or young person comes within any of the descriptions hereinafter mentioned, that to say:— (ii) a child or young person— (d) who, being a female, is a member of the same household as a female in respect of whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, has been committed by a member of that household, and who, in any such case as aforesaid, requires care or protection; or

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment, and it is to insert "is" after "that" ["that to say"]. I do not suppose the noble Viscount will object to it.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 21, after ("that") insert ("is").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (ii) (d), to leave out "has been committed by a member of that household." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow, because this vile crime has been committed against a female, that the person by whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act has been committed resides in the same house. He may be a member of another household and have access to the household in which the child is. Therefore I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 6, leave out ("has been committed by a member of that household").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount has moved this Amendment under a slight misapprehension, because, if it were accepted, the clause would be rendered meaningless. The noble Viscount, as he stated just now, really intends, I think, to leave out only the words "by a member of that household," and thus to apply paragraph (d) to girls under 17 who are living in the same household as a female in respect of whom an incestuous offence has been committed by any person wherever he may be living. The Amendment would take rather too wide a scope. The real object here is the protection of young girls who are living in surroundings likely to have a bad effect on their morals. In the class of case to which paragraph (d) refers the danger arises from the fact that the offender is living in the same household as the young girls concerned, and, having committed an offence against one, may be likely subsequently to assault the others. If a female becomes the victim of such an offence while away from her home, or if the offender is a person whom she meets quite apart from her home life, there is no justification for taking action under Clause 9 in respect of the young girls who are living in the same household with her and who may never have seen the offender. After this explanation, the noble Viscount will perhaps be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I have only imperfectly heard the noble Viscount. I should like to see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow what the actual objection is. Perhaps the noble Viscount would allow me to approach him in order to come to some compromise before the Third Reading. On those terms I am willing to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

Power of parent or guardian to bring child or young person before juvenile court.

10. Where the parent or guardian of a child or young person proves to a juvenile court that he is unable to control the child or young person, the court, if satisfied—

1. (i) that it is expedient so to deal with the child or young person, and
2. (ii) that the parent or guardian understands the results which will follow from and consents to the making of the order,

may order the child or young person to be sent to an approved school, or may order him to be placed for a specified period, not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court:

Provided that an order that the child or young person be sent to an approved school shall not be made unless the local authority within whose area he is resident agrees.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out "or young person" where those words first occur. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause empowers a parent or guardian to go to a juvenile court and say that the child or young person is beyond his control, and then, if the juvenile court agrees, the child or young person can be taken from the control of its parents or guardians and kept by the ratepayers. This Amendment, therefore, is in the interest of economy. On the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said this clause was in the existing Children Act, and the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, said that was a mistake, that the clause in the Children Act referred only to a child and not to a young person. In the circumstances I did not press my Amendment, but said I would introduce something of the same sort on Report, and I asked the noble Viscount whether he would consider it, and he said he would. I therefore propose to leave out "or young person," the effect of which will be to leave the law in exactly the same position as it is now. At present a parent can go to a juvenile court and ask it to take charge of a child; that is, a child under fourteen. That, as I understand it, is the law. I move this Amendment, first, in the interests of family life, and secondly, in the interests of economy. Why at the present moment we should make arrangements for taking care of persons between fourteen and eighteen I fail to see. We have got on very well in the past without that.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("or young person").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I hope you will not accept this Amendment. I speak as one who had the honour of being a member of the Departmental Committee which dealt with young persons requiring care and protection in Scotland. Our recommendations were entirely separate from those of the English Committee but very largely coincided with them, and we felt very strongly indeed that this provision was necessary and desirable. It is an extension of the provision in the existing Children Act, and we recommended that it should be so extended in order to deal with cases of young persons who are beyond parental control. Undoubtedly the matter applied principally to girls, and in order to illustrate exactly the sort of case which we had in mind in making the recommendation—a recommendation which is embodied in this Bill—I will read to you three instances which were given to us in evidence, by an exceedingly competent witness from a town in the North of Scotland: B, aged 15. Drank poison when told she must come in before midnight. Her most frequent companions disorderly men living in the near lodging houses. E, aged 17. Of hawker stock. Mother kind but weak. Father frequently from home. Unusually charming. Quietly defies all control. Stays out till midnight and chooses loose friends. G, aged 17. Had a child six months ago. Unmarried. Low minded. Mother careless. Girl has been all along very headstrong. It was in view of such cases as these, and also occasionally cases of boys, that we urged that it was very desirable that when a parent admittedly cannot control a child it should be brought under care and protection in order that it might be saved from ruin.

I do not deal with the economic argument. That comes up more forcibly under other provisions, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is true economy if we can save the life of a young person from being ruined and destroyed at an early stage of his or her career. I hope you will not accept the Amendment which will limit this clause to those who really require it less. It is after the age of fourteen, at the adolescent age when the difficult time occurs, when so many begin to go astray.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, may I reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who speaks from very special experience? I am quite certain that any one who is familiar with the difficulties created by girls about the age of fifteen or sixteen will think it is of the greatest possible importance that they should be brought under the scope of this Bill. It is precisely at that age that they very often manifest a quite peculiar degree of independence and want of restraint, often resulting, I am sorry to say, in these girls becoming the mothers of children. Sometimes they are very imperfect in intelligence and mental capacity, and, if it is a matter of economy, nothing could be more uneconomical than doing anything which makes it possible for girls of that kind to bring children into the world, often inheriting the defects of their parents and sharing their inability to control themselves. I am quite certain from my own experience, which is not inconsiderable in this matter, that it is precisely just over the age of fourteen, or between fourteen and sixteen, that there is the greatest need of bringing girls, and sometimes boys, under the provisions of this measure.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and His Grace the Lord Archbishop, for the powerful support they have given to the Government in resisting this Amendment. I am quite sure that nothing I could say would add to the force of their appeal. They both have spoken out of a fulness of experience in these matters. I may add, perhaps, that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has moved this Amendment in the interest of economy, and he made a statement to the effect that parents—and he made similar statements in earlier stages of this Bill —would find this a very easy opportunity of avoiding their parental responsibility and shouldering upon the ratepayers and taxpayers the cost of maintaining their children. He exaggerated altogether the danger of that. In the first instance, such a young person cannot be sent to an approved school except with the permission and the authority of the local authority, and then it is not correct, as the noble Lord said, that the entire cost of maintaining these young persons will fall upon the local authority or the Exchequer. The court can order that the parent should make a contribution to the cost, and I have no doubt that in its discretion the court will make such an order upon the parent.

I think the danger that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, anticipates is altogether unfounded. May I say how strongly I agree with what the two preceding speakers have said, that to neglect to deal with young persons of this kind at that very dangerous age is the very worst possible economy? They will be the inmates of prisons in later life at very great cost to the State unless they are taken in hand at that very dangerous and impressionable age of their lives. I hope your Lordship will not accept the Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down said that in all probability the parents would have to bear a proportion of the cost. There are clauses to that effect, but, as I said in Committee, the clauses are not very helpful, because the court can only charge the parent or guardian with a sum which they think is consistent with the parent's means, and the only remedy is the remedy which is applied in an affiliation case. They can send the defaulting person to prison, and that wipes out the debt. Therefore the remedy is not very much. With regard to what another noble Lord said, may I point out that I quite believe everything he said is absolutely correct, and that there are a great number of girls of sixteen or seventeen who do have children when they ought not to. That arises to a great extent from the fact that a great deal too much liberty is allowed to young people. They go to all sorts of places.

I think it was a right rev. Prelate who, in a previous debate, said he did not wish them to work for very long hours, so that they could go to clubs. When that takes place we know what happens. The result is a young person who probably ought not to come into the world, and I do not believe that by taking these girls and putting them into an approved school or an institution you are going to alter that. In all probability you will make it worse because, having been shut up for two or three years, they will be only too anxious to misbehave when they get out. I do not seem to have had any very great support up to the present moment, and I do not intend to divide, but I will not withdraw the Amendment. I should prefer to have it negatived, unless any noble Lord gets up and supports me.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 24:

General provisions as to orders committing children and young persons to care of fit person.

24.—(1) The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions "boy" and "girl" mean respectively a boy or a girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person.

(2) Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "eighteen" and insert "seventeen." The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount will remember that on the Committee stage I had a similar Amendment, and he asked me to take it on Clause 68, which I agreed to do. When Clause 68 came on it was very late. I said I would not move it then, but would do so now. Again the object of my Amendment is in the interests of economy, to reduce the age at which these young persons shall be kept by the State at the expense of the ratepayer or taxpayer from eighteen to seventeen. I fail to see why, especially at this moment, it is necessary to deal with people at the age of nearly eighteen. There are many young people of sixteen or seventeen who are quite capable of looking after themselves, who might be doing good work for themselves and others. Why the State should interfere and become a sort of parent, and take upon itself the responsibility of a parent, I fail to see. The noble Viscount, if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, will see that he said he would consider it. He did not go any further, I admit. But he did say he would consider it, and I sincerely hope he will agree to this.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 22, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

This Amendment really strikes at one of the most important parts of this Bill—namely, the age at which a young person should be regarded as a young person. The Bill, as your Lordships know, raises the age of the definition of a young person from sixteen to seventeen.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

To eighteen.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

No, seventeen as a young person. The Amendment now before your Lordships refers not to the definition of a young person, but to the age at which he shall remain under the supervision of the local authority or the probation officer. Lord Banbury has an Amendment to Clause 70, where we have a definition of a young person, and it seems to me that it might be more appropriate if the noble Lord were to raise his objection to that age on Clause 70. Of course, if your Lordships were to alter the Bill and reduce the age from seventeen to sixteen then it would be necessary to make Amendments to Clause 70. Coming to this particular Amendment, it is necessary that a person should be kept under supervision beyond the age of seventeen because he might be committed as a person requiring supervision just before he reached the age of seventeen—at sixteen years and eleven months. It would be patently absurd that he should be detained for a month only and then be released without any further supervision. The Government, of course, cannot accept this Amendment and I ask your Lordships not to agree to it.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

My Lords, I do not think my noble friend's Amendment is quite so absurd as the noble Viscount makes out. I am not expressing an opinion upon the age at which a young person should become an adult, but, as I understand the provision of Clause 70 of the Bill, it is that a young person is someone who is not a child and has not yet reached the age of seventeen. That being so, and it being contemplated that a person over seventeen should not come within the ambit of this Bill, we then find in Clause 24 (2) that certain provisions which are appropriate to a young person, this young person ceasing to be within the ambit of the Bill at seventeen, shall apply to him until eighteen years of age. It does seem to me rather extraordinary that you should say a person ceases to be amenable at the age of seventeen and then say that as far as commitment is concerned he may be kept until eighteen. It seems to be very illogical.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, before the Amendment is put perhaps the noble Viscount or someone speaking for the Government would deal a little more fully with the question why it is necessary to take power to detain until the age of eighteen. I understand that the Bill defines a young person as someone up to the age of seventeen and that young person may be put under the control of a fit person because he is a young person—that is, under seventeen. Having put him under control because he is under seventeen I myself fail at the moment to understand why he should be kept under control until the age of eighteen.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, may I raise one query? As I understand the proposals in this Bill there are three modes of dealing with a child or young person in different circumstances. You can send a child to an approved school, or you can commit a child to the care of a fit person, or you can put a child on probation. This clause deals with both children and young persons. I can quite understand its application to young persons, but it also applies to children. Clause 30 provides in subsection (1) that: Where a court order a child to be sent to an approved school, the order shall be an authority for his detention in an approved school until the expiration of a period of three years from the date of the order or until he reaches the age of fifteen. Why should there be the age of fifteen for detention in an approved school and eighteen for committal to a fit person? There may be some reason but I do not quite understand it. I thought that the provisions were alternative provisions.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, by leave of the House I will try to explain. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, is quite right in his interpretation, but he asks why there should be a different age in the case of a child and a young person. I must have made my meaning lamentably dull if your Lordships did not understand the reason why it is necessary to have the power to keep a young person up to the age of eighteen. As I pointed out, he may come under the jurisdiction of the court and of the local authority as the fit person to control him when he is nearly seventeen years of age. It would be perfectly useless to keep him for a few weeks only, or it may be for a few months only, and then leave him perfectly free to go back to his old vicious habits. That is why it is necessary to keep him beyond the age of seventeen. A person over the age of seventeen does not come under this Bill at all when he commits some offence or is regarded as being beyond the control of his parents. I think it is most important, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that this power to keep a young person up to the age of eighteen should be preserved in the Bill in order to deal with such cases as I have mentioned where the period of supervision is only very short and is far too short to have any effect of a reformative character.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, I am sorry to say, has not convinced me. If your Lordships will look at page 16 of the Bill you will see that Clause 24 (1) says: The provisions of this and the three next succeeding sections shall apply in relation to orders under this Part of this Act committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, and in those provisions the expressions 'boy' and 'girl' mean respectively a boy or a girl with respect to whom such an order is in force, irrespective of whether at the date of the making of the order he or she was a child or was a young person. That means under fifteen or under seventeen, because that is the definition unless I am mistaken, of a child or a young person. Then subsection (2) says: Every order shall embody a declaration as to the age of the boy or girl and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, remain in force until he or she attains the age of eighteen years. Subsection (2) contradicts subsection (1). I am afraid I must go to a Division on this.

On Question, Whether the word "eighteen" shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Selborne, E.	Gainford, L.
		Hampton, L.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Astor, V.	Harlech, L.
	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)	Chaplin, V.	Marks, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Marley, L.
Reading, M.	Hailsham, V.	Mildmay of Flete, L.
Salisbury M.	Mersey, V.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Zetland, M.		Northbourne, L.
	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Polwarth, L.
Airlie, E.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Rhayader, L.
Feversham, E.		Rochester, L.
Harrowby, E.	Arnold, L.	St. Levan, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Askwith, L.	Sanderson, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Atkin, L.	Snell, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Charnwood, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Stanmore, L.
Morton, E.		Strachie, L.
Onslow, E.	Clwyd, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Powis, E.	Darcy (de Knayth), L.
Radnor, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Templemore, L.
Rothes, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Trent, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Ullswater, V.	Hawke, L.
		Hindlip, L.
Lindsay, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Lloyd, L.
Midleton, E.		Monkswell, L.
Munster, E.	Conway of Allington, L.	Mount Temple, L.
Poulett, E.	Cranworth, L. [Teller.]	Raglan, L.
	Danesfort, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Darling, L.	Wharton, L.
Exmouth, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 35:

Contributions by local authorities in respect of persons sent to approved schools.

(2) A court by whom an approved school order is made shall cause a copy thereof to be served forthwith on the local authority named in the order and, if that authority desire to contend that the person to whom the order relates was resident in the district of some other local authority, or was resident outside England, they may, by notice in writing given at any time within three months after the service upon them of the order, appeal—

1. (a) if the order was made by a petty sessional court, to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessional division or place, and
2. (b) if the order was made by a court which was not a petty sessional court, to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where that court sat, or in the place from which the person to whom the order relates was committed for trial,

and if, upon the hearing of the appeal, the court are satisfied that the person to whom the order relates was resident in the district of that other local authority, or was resident outside England, they may by order vary the approved school order by substituting therein the name of that other authority or, as the case may be, a state- ment that the said person was resident outside England. Notice of any such appeal shall be given not less than fourteen days before the day on which the appeal is to be heard to the clerk of the court and to the other local authority concerned, if any.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to omit the last sentence of subsection (2) and insert: Notice of any appeal under this subsection shall be given to the other local authority concerned, if any, and to the clerk of the court, and the clerk of the court shall give to the parties to the appeal fourteen days' notice of the date fixed by the court for the hearing thereof.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as this is the first of the Amendments on the paper in my name, may I say that nearly all the Amendments standing in my name are either consequential on Amendments made by your Lordships in Committee or of a drafting character? Perhaps with that explanation your Lordships will excuse me from doing more when we come to these Amendments than formally move them. This Amendment deals with a small point of procedure in connection with the appeals by a local authority against the determination of liability to contribute to the maintenance of a person in an approved school. As the Bill stands at present, notice of the date of hearing of the appeal will have to be served by the appellant authority on the other authority concerned by way of summons. The Amendment is simply to make it possible to follow a more convenient procedure by which the clerk of the court gives notice of the date on which the appeal will be heard.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 23, leave out from ("England") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Escapes from, remand homes, and from the cure of fit persons]:

Amendments moved— Page 33, line 3, leave out ("the court who made") Page 33, line 4, after ("was") insert ("made by").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 27, at end insert ("or to both such fine and. imprisonment").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, this is an Amendment that I accept.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44:

Provision of approved schools by local authorities.

44.—(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 school 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 had given Notice that he would move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that before giving his approval the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable, and that before undertaking to purchase, build or establish a, new institution the local authority have used their best endeavours to make satisfactory provision by arrangement with the managers of another approved school.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I handed in the Amendment the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has put down an Amendment in his own name which follows on the same lines and which, he assures me, is really better and carries out the object more efficiently. Even if I thought otherwise I should bow to the opinion of the noble Viscount and there fore I will not move.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 7, at end insert: ("Provided that, before giving his approval, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable and, where it is proposed to purchase, build or establish a new school, that there is a deficiency of approved school accommodation which cannot properly be remedied in any other way.")—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

clause 51:

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

(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to— (b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employed in any capacity as aforesaid;

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 35, leave out ("employed") and insert ("employment").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (e), to insert (f) employment in any ship, as defined in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 3, at end, insert the said paragraph (f).—(Viscount Astor.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52:

Amendment of law with respect to street trading.

52.—(1) No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading:

Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding subsection may permit young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen to be employed by their parents in street trading.

(2) A local authority may make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting street trading by persons under the age of eighteen, and by-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes and between different localities, and may contain provisions—

1. (a) forbidding any such person to engage or be employed in street trading unless he holds a licence granted by the authority, and regulating the conditions on which such licences may be granted, suspended and revoked;
2. (b) determining the days and hours during which, and the places at which, such persons may engage or be employed in street trading;
3. (c) requiring such persons so engaged or employed to wear badges;
4. (d) regulating in any other respect the conduct of such persons whilst so engaged or employed.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 52. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an instance of grandmotherly legislation which I hope your Lordships will reject. The clause says: No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading: Provided that by-laws made under the next succeeding subsection may permit young persons who have not attained the age of sixteen to be employed by their parents in street trading. (2) A local authority may make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting street trading by persons under the age of eighteen, and by-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes and between different Localities. The result may be that in one part of London a young person of seventeen may trade under the by-laws, say, of the Borough Council of Camberwell, whereas in another part, under the Westminster Council for example, the by-laws may be different.

This seems to me to be a most extraordinary proposal and I do not see why the local authority should be a better judge than the parent or even the young person of seventeen. A person of seventeen, who perhaps has a father or mother ill and desires to do his best to keep the family going, is to be prevented because some busybody on the local authority—perhaps a Socialist who thinks that the Government is a better judge of what people ought to do than people themselves—chooses to say that in his district a young person may not trade except on the days and hours and in the places which are permitted. They have to wear badges, too. I do not know why they should be obliged to do that. Sometimes people do not like to distinguish themselves in that way. The clause seems so absurd that I cannot believe it can he permitted to pass. I really do not know what we are corning to. We shall soon never be able to do anything we like without the consent of the noble Viscount or somebody else. That does not appeal to me. I have been brought up to believe that it is my duty to do what I think best for myself and not to go to any local authority or even to the noble Viscount to ask what I am to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 52.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I venture to ask the Lord Privy Seal to give us some account of this clause. I do so with some diffidence because it is possible that the matter has been fully discussed at another stage of which I ought to be aware. Why is the distinction made between the two subsections? I can understand a general policy of preventing people of tender years from being engaged in street trading. Sixteen is perhaps not quite tender years, but still one can understand that the age might be extended as far as that; but why is there this distinction between the case of the first subsection, which deals with persons under sixteen, where the prohibition is to be absolute, and the second subsection, where the age is eighteen and where there is a discretion to the local authority. I cannot see why the matter should be handed over to a local authority at all. If it is wrong that a person under eighteen should be engaged in street trading that is a matter to be laid down by Parliament. Unless there is some special reason which the Lord Privy Seal may be able to explain I see no reason for the distinction. I do not propose to suggest that there should be an absolute rule regarding eighteen. Even sixteen is rather strong though perhaps a reasonable age. But why a person between sixteen and eighteen should not be allowed to engage in street trading puzzles me. There may be some great authority behind the Lord Privy Seal which he will be able to quote, but I do not think we should accept the clause as it stands unless there is a full defence made of it.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and I go further. I think it is ridiculous to say that a boy aged seventeen is not to be allowed to sell newspapers in the streets. That boy is eligible for enlistment in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and if fit to fight for his country and go forth into the world as a member of the Services, surely he is fit to sell newspapers in the streets.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, those familiar with constitutional history will remember that in the days before the Norman Conquest the laws of Wessex and Mercia, were so different that when there was any agreement it was a matter of comment. Laws varied from district to district and it was one of the tasks of the monarchs who followed to reduce this chaos to some sort of order. It seems to be the object of the Government to undo the work of those monarchs and to restore us to the chaos of the days before the Conquest.

LORD CRANWORTH

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment if only because of paragraph (c) which requires persons to wear badges. I think badges are one of the curses of the age. There is a flag day practically for every day of the week, and no one is happy unless he has a yellow cap, a blue pig or some sort of badge in his buttonhole. This does not say who is going to pay for the badges—whether His Majesty's Government, the local authority or the unfortunate person gathered in under the clause.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, may I point out the great injury this clause will inflict on the working classes? The earnings of street boys are often, though small, a substantial part of the family income and I suggest that this application of the principle of "Go and see what the poor are doing and tell them not to" will be exceedingly injurious.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I confess I share the feelings to a great extent of Lord Banbury of Southam with regard to this clause. As to the first subsection I cannot help thinking that the age of sixteen is too high. To say that a boy of fifteen cannot go out and sell a newspaper in his spare time, when he perhaps has left school, is unreasonable. Normally he would have left school at fifteen, and perhaps would have no employment, and is it reasonable to say that he must not go and sell newspapers between fifteen and sixteen, after he has left school? It seems to me a serious innovation, and if it is not an innovation it is certainly a serious interference with the rights of children of the working classes and their parents. So much for subsection (1). As to subsection (2), it seems to me nonsensical. Why should a boy be prevented from street trading unless he can get a licence under these objectionable conditions from the local authority? Why should he have to get authority at all? Surely, boys between the ages of sixteen and eighteen are old enough, with their parents' permission, to go into the street and do reasonable street trading, without having to go to the local authority, who perhaps may know nothing about the conditions of the family and may refuse them permission to earn the few shillings which may be necessary to keep the boy. I think the whole clause should come out, and perhaps the noble Viscount will bring up a more reasonable clause if it be necessary.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ANTERBURY

My Lords, may I a [...] the noble Lord whether it is necessary to leave out the whole of this clause? I express no opinion about subsection (2), but I am concerned about the preservation of subsection (1). It prevents a young person under the age of sixteen from street trading, unless the parents can show the local authority that it is necessary for one of their children under the age of sixteen to assist them. I should be very sorry indeed if this clause, prohibiting street trading for boys and girls, were left out. It happens that I have had very large experience of boys and girls under the age of sixteen engaged in street trading, and I can say that the mischief done by this occupation to both boys and girls can scarcely be exaggerated. Apart from the injury to morals, in the case of boys it entirely unfits them to seek or obtain that sort of regular employment which we should wish. Therefore, while not expressing any opinion about subsection (2), I hope the noble Lord will be content with moving to omit subsection (2), and not include subsection (1) in his Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, may I answer the most reverend Primate? I understand that the Question has been put that Clause 52 stand part, and therefore the clause must go out, but on the Third Reading it would be open to the most reverend Primate, or anybody else, to introduce a clause which would confine its provisions to children under the age of sixteen. Therefore he will not be in any way injured by the whole clause being left out now.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept the clause as it stands. This matter was considered very carefully by our Committee, which was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I would like to tell your Lordships of the evidence given before us by the late Chief Constable of Glasgow. He entirely agreed with the opinion expressed by his predecessor, when examined by the Departmental Committee appointed in 1909: Do you know any other form of occupation equally demoralising for a boy? Is it in your opinion the most demoralising form of occupation?—Yes. It is a loose occupation in which they are not occupied in steady employment, and have no discipline in their lives. He added that in his opinion street trading was an occupation which should be reserved for old or disabled men, and he was strongly opposed to its regulation by by-law in the case of young people. That was the late Chief Constable of Glasgow. Then the Chief Constable of Edinburgh, in evidence before us, definitely adhered to the evidence which he gave before the Departmental Committee in 1909: Do you call street trading the most resourceful apprenticeship to crime? —Unquestionably. My twenty years of experience as Chairman of the Prison Commissioners in Scotland confirm that view. I am glad to say that we have almost extinguished street trading by girls in Scotland, but a large number of boys engaged in it drift into crime, often led to it by betting. They constitute a large portion of the boys who begin a life of crime and become that most expensive of all persons, the habitual criminal. In Scotland, under the Education Act, 1918, street trading has already been forbidden under the age of seventeen, and none of the terrible consequences have ensued in Scotland which we have heard might follow from this clause, but there was an unfortunate loophole in that Act which would be remedied by this clause. It is that a boy could employ himself in street trading. As your Lordships know, the usual practice in selling newspapers is for a person to buy a number of newspapers at a discount and sell them on his own account. It was consequently found difficult to prove that a boy was being employed by anyone, although there was a system of farming out.

I earnestly hope that this clause will be accepted. I think it is extremely important that this demoralising occupation should be precluded. The number employed, according to the evidence which we have, was not great, and there will be no difficulty in absorbing these young persons in other employment. I doubt whether these boys contribute much to the family budget, because they are usually boys who have got out of the control of their parents, and left them and gone to live in lodging houses, often with bad associates. As I have said, I doubt whether they contribute much to the family budget, and it is a blind-alley occupation which leads to nothing. I hope the recommendations of the committees which have considered street trading will be adopted.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has made another powerful contribution to our debates, based upon practical knowledge and experience, and I am sure his words must have made a great impression upon your Lordships. Many of the speakers who have taken part in the debate upon this clause appear to be under the impression that this clause is new, and makes provisions in the law which are not already, in a somewhat similar form, embodied in our legislation. The only difference this clause makes is to raise the age for prohibition of street trading from fourteen to sixteen. At the present time the local authorities make regulations in regard to street trading, and therefore that part of the clause is not new. If this clause were deleted then all the local regulations as to street trading would be abolished. It would be possible then for children of any age to indulge in street trading, without any regulation or control. I would like to point out to your Lordships that prohibition of street trailing below a certain age, and regulation above that age, have been the law for nearly thirty years with most beneficial results. It would be a calamity if this clause were withdrawn from the Bill, because your Lordships would thereby only be encouraging those evils to which the noble Lord who spoke last has called the attention of your Lordships in such powerful language.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend has not dealt with subsection (2) at all.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

That is the power to make by-laws. As I have said already, this is a power given to the local authorities, and I think there are very good reasons for it. One noble Lord referred to the diversities of laws which existed in the time of the Saxons. I think there is a good deal to be said for a diversity of law in certain circumstances. I have no doubt that the Scottish members of your Lordships' House

think that it is an extremely good thing that there should be a diversity of law between Scotland and England. The conditions vary greatly in different towns. The noble Marquess said that the conditions ought to be laid down by Statute. Well, they are in the subsection to which he calls attention. It lays down the conditions under which the local authority shall make these regulations, and gives to the local authorities permission to make the regulations apply according to the special circumstances of a locality.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I ask if the local authority have the power to make these regulations apply up to the age of eighteen under the present law?

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

No. Up to the age of sixteen.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I think the answer of the noble Viscount is very disappointing, but, as he has pointed out to your Lordships that they already have these powers to a large extent, surely that shows that this clause is quite unnecessary.

On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Goschen, V.	Hampton, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Mersey, V.	Irwin, L.
	Ullswater, V.	Marks, L.
Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.)		Mildmay of Flete, L.
	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Monkswell, L.
Reading, M.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Zetland, M.		Northbourne, L.
	Arnold, L.	Polwarth, L.
Feversham, E.	Askwith, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Harrowby, E.	Atkin, L.	Rhayader, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Charnwood, L.	St. Levan, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. ClanWilliam.)	Sanderson, L.
Midleton, E.		Snell, L.
Morton, E.	Clwyd, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Powis, E.	Conway of Allington, L.	Stanmore, L.
Rothes, E.	Darcy (de Knayth), L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Bridgeman, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Templemore, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Gainford, L.	Trent, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	Radnor, E.	Darling, L.
	Selborne, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Airlie, E.		Harlech, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Bertie of Thame, V.	Hawke, L.
	Exmouth, V.	Hindlip, L.
Iddesleigh, E.		Howard of Glossop, L.
Lindsay, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Mount Temple, L.
Malmesbury, E.		Raglan, L.
Munster, E.	Cranworth, L. [Teller.]	Strachie, L.
Onslow, E.	Danesfort, L.	Wharton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 57 [Provisions as to juveniles taking part in, and being trained for, dangerous performances]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, I beg to move the four Amendments on the Paper.

Amendments moved— Page 46, line 1, leave out ("boy or girl") and insert ("person") line 3, leave out ("or her") line 4, leave out ("boy or girl") and insert ("person") line 5, leave out ("or her") in both places where those words occur.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 58 [Licences for training juveniles to take part in dangerous performances]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, the Amendment in my name is a drafting Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I do rather protest. At the request of the noble Viscount I withdrew all drafting Amendments and this is the sort of drafting Amendment I had on the Paper. Yet when this comes on the noble Viscount moves it.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I am afraid it is due to an oversight of mine.

Clause 62:

Savings.

(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.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "choir boy" and insert "chorister." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the Amendment is to cover both sexes. I believe in very many villages choirs consist both of boys and girls, and what is sauce for the gander should also be sauce for the goose.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 39, leave out ("choir boy") and insert ("chorister").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Amendment of S. 1 of the principal Act]

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to add the following new subsection: (3) A person who at the commencement of this Act is nursing and maintaining for reward an infant under the age of nine years apart from its parents or having no parents, shall within one month after the commencement of this Act, give to the local authority in respect of that infant such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (2) of the said Section one: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall require a person to give such a notice in any case where a notice was given by him to the local authority on the first reception of the infant.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary in consequence of the provision in the clause requiring notice to be given by the local authority when a person undertakes for reward the nursing of a child. I am sure it will meet with your Lordships' approval.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67:

Removal of infants kept in unsuitable premises, or by unsuitable persons.

(2) An order made under the foregoing subsection may be enforced by a constable, or by a visitor or other person appointed or authorised as aforesaid; and any person who refuses to comply with such an order upon its being produced and read over to him, or who obstructs any such constable, visitor or person as aforesaid in the enforcement of the order, shall be guilty of an offence under Part I of the principal Act.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and read over to him." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause contemplates obstruction—

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 42, leave out ("and read over to him").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68:

Prohibition of anonymous advertisements offering to undertake care of infants.

68.—(1) It shall be unlawful to publish any advertisement indicating that a person whose name and address are not disclosed therein will undertake, or will arrange for, the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of nine years.

(2) Every person who publishes any advertisement in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence under Part I of the principal Act.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN moved to omit subsection (1) and the words "Every person who" in subsection (2), and to insert: (1) No advertisement indicating that a person or society will undertake, or will arrange for, the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of nine years shall be published unless that person's name and residence, or, as the case may be, that society's name and office, are truly stated in the advertisement. (2) Every person who knowingly.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 7, leave cut from the beginning to ("publishes") in line 12 and insert the said words.—(Viscount Snowden.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME

I have an Amendment to a similar purpose, and I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for moving his, because it is much better drafted and makes the thing quite watertight. As the Bill stood the provisions of the clause could have been circumvented.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70:

Raising the age of "young persons."

70.—(1) For the purposes of this and the principal Act the expression "young person" means a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years, and in the definitions of "young person" in Section forty-nine of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, as amended by Section one hundred and twenty-eight of the principal Act, and of "adult" in Section twenty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, "seventeen" shall be substituted for "sixteen."

LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "seventeen" and insert "sixteen." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to leave the age as it is. I do not know that there is very much chance of it being accepted, but I move it formally. I see no reason why the age should be altered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 11, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 70, to insert the following new clause: . It shall be unlawful for a person to hire or let out on hire or borrow or lend an infant under nine years for the purpose of accompanying a person while engaged in street trading.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it is common knowledge that children are borrowed or hired by flower sellers who are engaged in street trading to create sympathy, and it is a great abuse. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept this Amendment to prevent that sort of thing being carried on. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 70, insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, now that your Lordships have accepted Clause 52, I think that the Amendment which has just been moved is unnecessary, because it is quite clear that a child, under regulations made by the local authority, could not be employed really for the purposes of begging and ostensibly for the purposes of street trading. 1 might also say that the intention of the clause is already fully covered by Section 14 of the Children Act of 1908, and I am informed that it is the experience of the Home Office that that section has proved quite effective in preventing begging by children in the streets. After that explanation I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment, which I am sure is quite unnecessary.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, with regard to the noble Viscount's argument that Clause 52 covers the point I think he is mistaken in that. It reads: No person under the age of sixteen shall engage or be employed in street trading. Can it possibly be said that an infant in arms is either engaged or employed in street trading when he cannot even speak? It is a ridiculous argument, if I may say so. With regard to the second part of the noble Viscount's argument, that Section 14 of the 1908 Act covers the point, it only shows how bad it is to have brought this Bill in separately instead of, as I have often suggested before, bringing in a Consolidation Amending Act, but as the noble Viscount assures me that it is already covered by that section of the 1908 Act I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD ATKIN

Can we have Section 14 read?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

In reply to the noble and learned Lord, the section reads: (1) If any person causes or procures any child or young person, or, having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person, allows that child or young person, to be in any street, premises, or place for the purpose of begging or receiving alms, or of inducing the giving of alms, whether or not there is any pretence of singing, playing, performing, offering anything for sale, or otherwise, that person shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in default of payment of such fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months. (2) If a person having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person is charged with an offence under this section, and it is proved that the child or young person was in any street, premises, or place for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the person charged allowed the child or young person to be in the street, premises, or place, he shall be presumed to have allowed him to be in the street, premises, or place for that purpose unless the contrary is proved.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, I think it will appear now that that section, as read out, does not really cover the same point. It only applies to a child used for the purposes of begging. That has to be proved. It is not for the ostensible purpose of selling goods. The child must be used for the purpose of begging. I think what the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment wishes to prevent is the use of a child by a flower seller or a match seller engaged in selling flowers or matches in order to secure sympathy. In such a case the child could not in any circumstances be said to be begging. It seems to me that the proposal, whether right or not, is somewhat different from the section. May I make a suggestion to the noble Viscount? I have not looked through the whole machinery of this Bill as compared with the Children Act, but I would point out that in his Amendment there is no provision for a penalty. All he says is "It shall be unlawful." The ordinary procedure on that is indictment for misdemeanour in breach of some Statute. That I do not suppose is contemplated. If there is an offence under some Act and a penalty provided that would do, but if not he must provide for a penalty on summary conviction.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

After hearing the noble and learned Lord I think I must press the Amendment. It can be taken out on Third Reading if we discover that the 1908 Act does cover it.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Viscount, as this is a question whether the offence is already covered, that it should be considered in the light of the present discussion? It seems to me that the question is whether the point is covered or uncovered at the moment and I suggest that it might be looked into to see whether it is necessary to cover it.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I am quite prepared to do that. I would not venture to express a legal opinion about the interpretation of the clause, but as an ignorant layman I should be inclined to think that the section in the Children Act is wider than the terms of this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

It occurred to me that that might be so and that is why I suggested that the matter should be considered carefully.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

May I be allowed to read Section 14 of the Children Act, 1908? Subsection (2) of that section says: If a person having the custody, charge or care of a child or young person is charged with an offence under this section, and it is proved that the child or young person was in any street, premises, or place for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the person charged allowed the child or young person to be in the street, premises, or place, he shall be presumed to have allowed him to be in the street, premises, or place for that purpose unless the contrary is proved.

LORD ATKIN

That is if the child is permitted to be in the street "for that purpose," and "that purpose" is the purpose of begging.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

I know it is presumption on my part even to offer an opinion upon the interpretation of a clause, but I should think that a child in arms in the custody of a person who is using the child for the purpose of inciting public sympathy would clearly come within that subsection. However, I do not for a single moment put my opinion against that of the noble and learned Lord, and I will adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY

My Lords, May I suggest that inquiry might also extend to the question whether the section in the Children Act would snake this offence apply not only to the woman or man with the child in her or his arms for the purpose of begging, but also to anyone who lends a child? That, as I know from personal experience, is in certain circles constantly done. Children are hired out for this purpose as a regular trade. It seems to me that the noble Viscount's Amendment is a great deal wider than the section in the Children Act.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, I think it will be found that that is covered by the section which has been read out by my noble friend, but I think it is a much more convenient course to have the matter looked into by the Home Office and its legal advisers between now and Third Reading.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

On that understanding I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 [Institution of proceedings by local or Poor Law authorities]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 26, leave out ("Part II of the principal Act") and insert ("any part of the principal Act or of this Act").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78 [Amendment of Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, there are two drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 58, line 23, leave out ("and be deemed always to have included") Page 58, line 27, leave out ("and be deemed always to have included").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 81:

Provisions as to local authorities.

(4) Expenses incurred under this Act by the council of a county or county borough, exclusive of any expenses to be defrayed under the last preceding subsection as expenses of elementary education under the Education Act, 1921, shall be defrayed— (b) in any other case, as expenses for general county purposes or, as the case may be, out of the general rate.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 25, leave out ("or scheme").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (4) "to a sum not exceeding four thousand pounds per annum." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move the Amendment standing in my name with the object of obtaining from the noble Viscount a further statement on expenditure connected with this Bill. I may say that I fully realise that the Amendment I have put on the Paper is a breach of Privilege, but I hope however that I shall obtain some satisfactory reply. I would draw attention to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal on the Committee stage, in which he said that the estimate of the London County Council (that the Bill would cost them £10,000 a year) was absurd. He gave figures which showed that the extra cost would be £4,000. I have asked various questions and I have been very careful in making certain of my facts, and I am informed that the London County Council cannot alter from the position they have taken up and that the Bill will cost them an additional £10,000 a year on a very conservative estimate. The noble Viscount assumed that there would be a saving to the local authorities on the Borstal and other institutions, but I would venture to suggest that the saving there will accrue entirely to the Home Office. In those circumstances taking the noble Viscount's own calculation I find that the increase in cost to the local authorities will be no less than £53,000. I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that the noble Viscount will make a further announcement.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 5, at end insert ("to a sum not exceeding four thousand pounds per annum").—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I say a word or two on this subject? There may be great difference of opinion as to whether this Bill is a good one or not, but I think everybody will agree that the present is not the time when we ought to increase expenditure if we can possibly avoid it. On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to state—and it has not been contradicted by anybody except by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden—that it was estimated that this Bill would cost the London County Council alone a sum of £10,000 per annum. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, on the 13th of this month, when this Bill was in Committee, said my estimate was absurd. I hope he will withdraw that remark when he comes to speak, for the following reasons. The extra expenditure under this Bill for approved schools will be, it is estimated, £28,000. That was the noble Viscount's own statement. The local authorities dealing with certain classes of children will have to spend £25,000 more, making a total sum which will fall on the rates—not the taxes—of £53,000. Then he proceeded to say that my statement was absurd because the saving on Borstal and other institutions would be £49,000, and therefore the actual extra expenditure would be a bagatelle of £4,000 per year. But the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, forgot that the Borstal institution is under the Home Office and that the Home Office deals with taxes and not with rates.

The whole point of my remark on Second Reading—namely, that it will cost the County Council £10,000 a year—was that the burden on the ratepayers would be increased by that amount. You may say that it does not make much difference whether it comes out of rates or out of taxes, but I do object to having my statements characterised as absurd, even by the noble Viscount. Having explained the position to your Lordships, I think I am perfectly correct in saying that it will cost the rates of the London County Council £10,000 a year.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment very wisely did not defend its terms. He did not press his Amendment because it would be regarded as a privileged Amendment. There are other and very strong reasons why his Amendment is very undesirable. If it had been put down in the interests of economy, that certainly would not have been the effect, because to encourage local authorities to spend up to £4,000 a year from the rates for certain purposes of this Bill would be a very much larger sum than they are spending at the present time. However, the noble Earl explained that he had put down this Amendment in order to draw from me a statement with regard to the financial implications of the Bill, and I respond to that appeal. I pointed out to your Lordships on a former occasion that the effect of this Bill, so far as estimates of cost can be made from the very best material available, would be a very slight saving to the National Exchequer and a slightly increased expenditure by the whole of the local authorities. The expenditure of the local authorities will, of course, vary according to the obligations which are incurred by the local authority in carrying out the provisions of this Bill.

In reply to the observation that was made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, the suggestion that I appeared to convey to your Lordships the idea that the saving on the Borstal institution would be shared by the local authorities is without foundation, because I was then dealing—it was on the Second Reading I believe—with the expenditure both from the National Exchequer and from the local rates. Although I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory, I believe I did point out to your Lordships that the cost of the Borstal institution was borne wholly by the Exchequer.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

The noble Viscount is wrong there.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

Well, it does not matter very much. The expenditure of carrying out the provisions of this Bill will, as I have said, depend in the main on the extent to which the courts use its provisions. In regard to approved schools, the expenditure in connection with approved schools is dependent, of course, upon the number of persons for whom accommodation must be found. In speaking upon quite a number of Amendments, I pointed out to your Lordships that it is not expected that there will be any need for an increase in the school accommodation. The accommodation in these approved schools will be affected, of course, by the raising of the age of these young persons from sixteen to seventeen because it will be possible in future to send to these schools children of sixteen. That proposal is the main item of increased expenditure, an increase, I mean, upon the local rates. The proposal accounts for nearly all the contemplated increase in expenditure which amounts to £57,000 a year. This increase of expenditure is more than offset by savings amounting to £98,000 a year. There is a requirement in Clause 33 that children under ten shall not in future be sent to approved schools if they can be properly dealt with elsewhere. What is the net result? The period of detention in these schools is expected to be less. Allowing for incidental effects in respect of persons who will be sent to approved schools instead of to Borstal institutions and probation homes, the annual expenditure in respect of approved schools will be reduced by a net sum of £47,000 a year.

The effect of the Bill taken as a whole is, it is estimated, as follows. I am dealing with the National Exchequer at the moment and will come to the London County Council and local authorities later. The saving to the National Exchequer is expected to be very small, about £600 a year. When the Bill was introduced, the estimated saving to the National Exchequer was about £8,000, but there was an Amendment made in Committee in another place which absorbed the whole of that estimated saving with the exception of about £600.

As to the estimated cost to local rates, I believe that last week I gave a round figure of £4,000. Further investigations have been made and the estimate is an addition over the whole of the local authorities of the country of about £3,600 a year. As I mentioned a moment ago, the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Bill will vary very much as between local authority and local authority. There are some places in the country where there is very little juvenile delinquency and therefore the cost in these localities will be practically negligible. London is, of course, in a very different position. It is the most expensive part of the country for carrying out the provisions of this Bill and, as the noble Lord who spoke last said, the London County Council have claimed that the net effect of the Bill in their area will be to place upon the ratepayers an additional burden of £10,000 a year. The Home Office do not concur in this estimate, although they would not be disposed to deny that the additional charge in London may amount, not to £10,000 a year, but to about £4,000 a year.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

That is the first year of the operation of the Bill.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

No, that is the average. The noble Lords have spoken as if the first year's operation of this Bill would involve an extra expenditure of about £10,000 to the London County Council. I am sure that must be the impression given to your Lordships. There has come into my possession a copy of an estimate prepared by the London County Council and circulated to members of the Council giving details of the estimated increased expenditure under this Bill. The first year it is only £4,000, then it rises in the second year to £9,400, and in the third year to £12,800. That is the additional cost. Deducting the net saving, it is under £4,000 the first year, under £9,000 the second, and under £12,000 the third; say an average of £10,000 a year. The London County Council estimate that the increased cost of remand homes will be £1,000 a year and that will not increase. The Council's estimate of this expenditure to be met out of rates in 1932 is, as I have said, £1,000; approved schools, £2,200; additional for neglected children and young persons, £375; and administration, £500. In regard to remand homes there will in future be a small increase in the number of children maintained in a home, but no material increase of expenditure need be anticipated so far as London is concerned, and your Lordships will notice that, covering a population of some 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 they themselves only estimate that under that item the increased expenditure will be £1,000 a year. The Council's estimate, I understand, provides for the maintenance of 60 additional children in the first year, rising to about 256 in the fourth year. This provision represents about 28 per cent. of the whole addition to the approved school population in England and Wales. I do not want to use the adjective to which Lord Mount Temple took such strong objection, but I think on the face of it an estimate of this sort cannot be justified by the facts.

I need not go through all the items of alleged increased expenditure given in the London County Council's memorandum, but I can give some of them. I am still speaking of the London County Council. If, as appears to be the case, the additional expenditure under the heading of approved schools is overestimated by, say, £2500 and the saving arising under the heading of alterations and period of detention may be assessed at £3,500, the additional expenditure falling on the Council, according to the best estimate the Home Office can make, is not likely to be more than £4,000 a year instead of £10,000 as has been suggested. I admit that that is an exceptional case. That figure is just about the figure of the estimated increases all over the country. Of course there will be many districts where there will be no additional increase. I apologise to your Lordships for having gone into this matter in such detail, but I am glad that it has been raised and I hope that we shall not hear again that this Bill is going to inflict upon the ratepayers of London, in carrying out some of its provisions, a sum of £10,000 a year.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, if I had not been in this august Assembly, but in another place, I think that in view of the unsatisfactory statement of the Lord Privy Seal I should move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. I cannot do that here but I hope, in view of the statement, Lord Darling's Amendments later on may be carried. There is no doubt that the figures are very conflicting, as is evidenced by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. I cannot see myself that the Lord Privy Seal has made out any case at all against the London County Council. On information received from that body, which is not usually inaccurate, I made the same statement as Lord Mount Temple and the noble Earl. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships, but I should like to say that I have a note here and the figures which the Lord Privy Seal provided us with just now are not on all fours. The estimate for the committal to schools of young persons between sixteen and seventeen years of age—£10,000—is based on an assumed number of 120 young persons a year at the present rate of contribution fixed by the Home Office of 15s. each per week, the full cost falling in the third year. No information is available from the Home Office of the number of young persons between sixteen and seventeen for whom accommodation is likely to be required, and the estimate of 120 is based upon the statistics in the Council's possession of London young persons between fifteen and sixteen years of age committed to reformatory schools.

That is one thing on which we do not agree with the figures of the Lord Privy Seal. There is also a slight discrepancy as regards the estimate for every reduction of a shilling made by the Home Office in the flat rate of 15s. The estimate, instead of £660, is £666, but that is nothing. As regards other provisions of the Bill there will be additional expenditure of approximately £3,000 in respect of the Council's remand home; additional cases of neglected children and young persons; after care; and general administration. This will be offset to an estimated extent of £2,500 by the boarding out of children between eight and ten years of age instead of committal to schools. The net additional cost of the Bill to the Council in regard to juvenile offenders and neglected children and young persons, assuming the anticipated reduction in the flat rate, will be approximately £10,000 a year. That is dated 14th June, 1932. There is this very grave discrepancy and I do therefore hope that if we do not get what we ask for to-day, in view of the necessity for economy, Lord Darling's proposal will be carried.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Privy Seal for his statement and I only want to ask him whether I am right in concluding that the £28,000 for the additional schools and the estimate of £25,000 for the placing of responsibility on the local authorities making a total of £53,000, is the extra expenditure for the whole of the United Kingdom.

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

£28,500 was, I think, the figure I gave. That is the amount that falls on the Exchequer with regard to the approved schools. I could give the total expenditure, if your Lordships wanted the items, under various headings, but I do not think it is necessary. The amount of addition for the approved schools which will fall on the Exchequer will be, as I have said, £28,500. Then there are reduced commitments that are expected to save £52,500. The reduced numbers and shorter period of detention are expected to save £45,500. Reduced commitments to Borstal are £5,000, and reduced use of probation homes £1,000. The total reductions are £104,000 and the Exchequer saves £54,500.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 [Interpretation and Construction of References]:

VISCOUNT SNOWDEN

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 16, leave out ("The first section of Part II"), and insert ("Section nine").—(Viscount Snowden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 88:

Applicatirn to Scotland.

88.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the adaptations and modifications specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

(2) A copy of this Act as applying to Scotland by virtue of the provisions of the last preceding subsection, but with this section and the said Fifth Schedule omitted therefrom, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as if it were a separate Act which had received the Royal Assent on the same day as this Act and shall be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and thereupon this Act shall cease to apply to Scotland and the Act as certified as aforesaid shall take effect as a separate Act of the present session and may be cited as the children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, and may be printed as a separate Act by the Printers to His Majesty as a chapter of the statutes of the session distinguished by the number next following the number of the chapter assigned to this Act.

THE DURE OF BUCCLEUCH had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 88. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I will not move my Amendment, but I will speak on the Amendment of my noble friend Viscount Ullswater.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this matter was discussed in Committee, but I make no excuse for raising it again on Report. The provision contained in subsection (2) of this clause will, I think, strike anybody who has been in the habit of watching the course of Bills going through Parliament, as unusual and novel. I understand that there are some precedents for a clause of this kind. I have looked the precedents up, and what I find is that during the War, in 1917, the Air Force Constitution Act was passed. By the Air Force Constitution Act it was decided to set up an Air Force, to abolish the Air Council, and to apply the Army Act to the new Air Force. It was obvious that under the stress of circumstances existing at the time of the War, and the hurry with which legislation had then to be passed, it was almost impossible to find time to produce a complete Army Act dealing with the Air Force, and it was resolved that the provisions of the Army Act, as then existing, should be applied to the Air Force by a Schedule. This Schedule was to be embodied in an Order in Council, and the Order in Council was to be laid before Parliament.

There may have been objections to that, but still the circumstances of the time were an excuse. That is not exactly the same procedure as that which is proposed in this Bill. In this Bill we are to devolve upon the Clerk of the Parliaments the duty of going through this Bill, when it becomes an Act, striking out a certain number of English words and expressions, and substituting for them the Scottish words and expressions which are embodied in a Schedule of this Bill. That will mean a very remarkable performance on the part of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I do not think that he is qualified as an authority upon Scottish law. He will find many unusual and barbarous terms in the Schedule, and I think he will have some considerable difficulty, together with his staff, in applying these words properly, so as to make sense of the Act. Assuming that he does not himself undertake this duty, but that he expects the Scottish Department to do this for him, and I suppose that is probably what will happen, the Scottish Department, who have complete knowledge of this terminology, will no doubt he able to put it into the shape of an Act. Then they will submit it to the Clerk of the Parliaments, and they will ask him to sign and certify it. His certificate will really be a fraud, because he will really be giving a certificate which he is asked to give by the Scottish Department. As I have said, one of two things will happen. Either the whole thing will be performed by the Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff, who are not specially constituted for the purpose, or else he will trust to the Scottish Department blindly and he will have to sign what they put before him.

I do not think that either is a satisfactory way for this House to legislate. If I am asked what is the proper course, so as to avoid the necessity of having a special Scottish Act of Parliament, my reply would be that the better course would be to put into the Schedules of this Bill the complete Scottish Act. You may say that that will make rather a long Statute of it, but it will not be any longer than the two Statutes put together, which is contemplated by the Bill, because after this Bill has passed that will be one Statute, and then there will be the Statute of the Clerk of the Parliaments, which will have another number it is true, but it will follow immediately upon this Bill, and there will be those two Statutes, containing the same clauses, except that one will be in Scottish and the other in English. I cannot help thinking that the reason why the Government have adopted this form of legislation is to avoid the Scottish Committee in another place. It is a very clever way of getting out of the criticism of the Scottish Committee. All purely Scottish Bills in another place, I understand, have to go to a Committee composed for the greater part of Scottish members. They would give to such a Bill keen and close criticism, and the Bill would come out as a Scottish measure. This Bill has never been before the Scottish Committee at all. The Schedule has never been before the Scottish Committee, and we are asked to take this novel and unusual course. I think we should do it, if we do it at all, with our eyes fully open.

I have quoted one precedent. I am bound to say that I have been furnished with two other precedents. One relates to the Naval Discipline Act, 1922, where an Amending Act to the Naval Discipline Act provided that all the amendments made by that Act were to be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act, and that it was to be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and separately printed, and go through the same process as is proposed for this Bill. That precedent, I admit, is a clean and direct precedent for this Bill. There is also another, the Administration of Justice Act, 1928, where a similar procedure is adopted. I think it was the Lord Privy Seal who said there were a number of precedents for things, but all precedents were not good precedents, and I doubt very much whether the attention of Parliament, when these two Bills of 1922 and 1928 were going through, was ever called to this novel method of procedure. It Was my fate in another place, during a great number of years, to watch very closely the clauses of all Bills, and I cannot remember one single instance during the time I was there of anything of this kind having happened.

I do not say that it may not be a good way of doing the thing, but I do say that if we are going to do it we should do it with our eyes fully open and conscious of what we are doing. I am quite certain that in future cases this procedure may be again adopted. It is for that reason that I put down this Amendment. I think that the matter requires some elucidation, I do not like to think of its being done sub silentio and it is very desirable that we should be fully aware of what is going on.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Ullswater.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

May I ask one question in regard to procedure? The Act is to be applied to Scotland with modifications as specified in the Fifth Schedule and as Amendments are made in the Bill the Government put them down in the Fifth Schedule, first those made in Committee and after Committee then on Report. But what happens on Third Reading? Supposing Amendments are made on Third Reading. How are we to be sure that the Amendments are made in the Fifth Schedule to enable the Clerk of the Parliaments to bring the Scottish Bill into identity with the English Bill? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I would rather like to know how that is to be done.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I will deal with the noble Earl's point last because it is a fresh one. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that it is important that this subsection should not be passed by inadvertence or without discussion or without a full appreciation of what is being done, but I hope to satisfy your Lordships that in fact what is being done is quite free from objection on any grounds either of the Constitution or of convenience. And let us be quite clear—because I am not quite certain that it is entirely clear to all your Lordships—what it is that we are discussing. We arc not discussing whether or not there shall be an adaptation clause, in which the alterations necessary to bring the apt Scottish words into the Act in lieu of the apt English words shall be incorporated in the Bill. That is done by subsection (1) which nobody has moved to delete. We therefore start with this, that the Bill in the Fifth Schedule sets out the adaptations and modifications which are necessary to make it intelligible in Scotland.

That having been done, then subsection (2) provides that: A copy of this Act as applying to Scotland by virtue of the provisions of the last preceding subsection"— that is the one which says that there shall be the adaptations and modifications set out in the Fifth Schedule— shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as if it were a separate Act. … and shall be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament and take effect in Scotland. From observations which have fallen from some of your Lordships at an earlier stage it seems to have been thought that in some way we were asking the Clerk of the Parliaments to use any knowledge he has of Scottish law in order to make the necessary corrections in this Bill. That of course would be quite impossible. To do that would be to entrust the Clerk of the Parliaments with the power of legislating and would be unconstitutional and inconvenient. But that is not what we are doing. We are setting out in terms in the Fifth Schedule exactly what it is that is necessary in order to make this Bill applicable to Scotland, and all that the Clerk of the Parliaments has to do—he will forgive me for saying this—is the purely clerical task of taking this Bill and writing where we are told to write the necessary words which are set out in the Fifth Schedule.

May I give your Lordships an illustration? I will take the first two paragraphs of the Fifth Schedule as being convenient ones: In the title after the word 'provision' there shall be inserted the words 'in Scotland' and after the word 'amend' there shall be inserted the words 'in their application to Scotland'. Now what does that mean? That means that the learned Clerk of the Parliaments will have to take this Bill and when he finds the word "provision" in the title write after it the words "in Scotland," and after the word "amend" he will write "in their application to Scotland." It is a task which any typist or shorthand clerk could perform. Similarly in paragraph 2, wherever you find the words "petty sessional division or place" you shall write in "place." That is not difficult. Where you find the words London Gazette you are to put in Edinburgh Gazette and, except in Section 64 and subsection (1) of Section 77, where you find the word "recognisance" you are to write the word "bond." That is the whole process all through the Fifth Schedule.

No skill is required. I should be very much astonished and rather shocked if I heard it suggested by the learned Clerk of the Parliaments that he was going to ask the Scottish Office to do it for him. Of course he will not. He will do this which Parliament directs and he will do it quite simply. It is done in a number of Acts already. The noble Viscount gave us two examples from the Air Force and the Naval Discipline Act, and in Section 8 of the Army Act you find a similar provision that wherever there is an alteration you shall print the modification into the new section of the Army Act. Normally I admit it is done by the King's printers without the intervention of the Clerk of the Parliaments. In this particular case we thought it convenient that the Clerk of the Parliaments should do it.

If you left out subsection (2) you would not alter the application of this Act to Scotland. You still have got your Fifth Schedule which says exactly what you are going to do in relation to Scotland. But somebody would first of all have to bring out, as they no doubt would in Scotland, a convenient print in which their clerk would do what we are suggesting the Clerk of the Parliaments should do, and unfortunately when they had done so that would not have any statutory authority, and so the Sheriff Substitute, or whoever else it was who had to administer the Act would first have to look in the early part of the Act to find the words which apply to England, then he would have to turn up in the Fifth Schedule the modifications which are applicable to the section in its application in Scotland and then substitute one for the other. Well it is made more convenient to have it printed for us. And that is all that we are doing.

I have said that there are numbers of precedents for Parliament providing that you shall print an Act with modifications. There is a recent one in the Patents and Designs Bill which passed through this House about two or three weeks ago, in which it is provided that Section 14 (I think it is) of the Act of 1907 shall be printed with the modifications which are incorporated in the Bill which is being passed.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

In that case who is responsible? I have not got the Patents and Designs Act. But if the question then arose, who is to be responsible for what appeared in the document that would be printed?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Presumably the King's printers, but of course that is very inconvenient, and it is much better that it should be done by somebody who is designated by Parliament for the purpose. If you do not have this clause inserted, in order to administer the Act the Court would have to take the Schedule and write into the places in the Act so prescribed the necessary words. It is not very convenient but it can be done. I have not the Bill before me, but I have the Naval Discipline Act which, I think, is the most recent case. This is what is called the printing clause: Every enactment and word which is directed by any Act amending this Act to be substituted for or added to any portion of this Act shall form part of this Act in the place assigned to it by the amending Act, and this Act and all Acts which refer thereto shall, after the commencement of the amending Act, be construed as if that enactment or word had been originally enacted in this Act in the place so assigned. Later the same section says: A copy of this Act with every such enactment and word inserted in the place so assigned, and with the omission of any portion of this Act directed by any such amending Act as aforesaid to be repealed or omitted from this Act, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printers shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of this Act which are printed after the commencement of such amending Act. There we do give the same duty to the Clerk of the Parliaments as we suggest here, but in the other Act it was left to the King's printers to do it. That, I think, is an exact precedent of what we are doing here.

I may say that we are not doing this without any consultation with Scotland. We have had the express approval of two or three responsible Scottish authorities. The Faculty of Advocates express their view that it would be a convenience to the profession and an improvement on any former system. The Glasgow Faculty of Procurators said the same thing, and the Association of the Clerks of the Peace in Scotland also said the same thing. If I may turn to a lay body which will be much interested in the administration of the Act, the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who have been largely concerned in the administration of the 1908 Act and will be concerned as regards this Bill, they also are strongly in favour of it.

In the 1908 Act, which this Bill modifies and supplements, your Lordships will remember that there is an elaborate clause applying the Act to Scotland in the same way as the Fifth Schedule does here. It is Section 132, which extends over about six pages of the Statute, in which the necessary modifications are set out, but there is no provision for reprinting the Act with the modifications made, and in practice we have had complaints that it is inconvenient. In administering the law in Scotland, you first have to find the Act as it is written in English, then find the modifications which are set out in the clause or Schedule, and then do for yourselves what is a purely clerical process, rewrite the section with the different words in. It is much more convenient—and the Scottish authorities think it is more con- venient—that the Act should be reprinted as a separate Act with the Scottish words substituted.

I want to press upon your Lordships—because this is the whole point I am advancing—that it would be quite unreasonable in my judgment to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments should make the necessary modifications in order to make this Act applicable to Scotland. If anything of that was suggested I should not be here supporting it; but Parliament, in the Fifth Schedule, sets out exactly the modifications which are to be made, and all you have to do is to perform a purely clerical task, which does not require the skill of the learned Clerk of the Parliaments, and which really any clerk could do, although one wants it done by a reliable person in order to make authoritative the rewriting of the sections with the words substituted which Parliament has directed shall be substituted. That has been done in the 1922 instance, and I think it is a convenient and proper method, although I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for bringing the matter to the express attention of your Lordships' House. I should be sorry to think that it was passed by an inadvertence.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said: "Well, what will be done if there are Amendments moved on Third Reading?" As the noble Earl appreciates, no Amendment can be moved on Third Reading unless proper Notice has been given, and you have a printed list of the Amendments to be moved. You cannot move a manuscript Amendment. Therefore, if any Amendment is put down which has any effect on Scotland that matter will be considered, as every Amendment is considered, on its merits. It will be considered from that point of view by the Department concerned, by the Home Office and by the Scottish Office, and if it should involve any alteration of the Scottish language in the Fifth Schedule then the necessary Amendment would be put down at the same time. There are not a great many Amendments; as far as I know none has been suggested yet which would have any effect on the Fifth Schedule, but if that should happen it would be safeguarded in that way. It is not as if one could do at every stage what one could do on the earlier stages, move Amendments which have not been previously put down. Obviously in that case the difficulty which the noble Earl raises would be a very real one. I do hope with that explanation your Lordships will realise we are not doing anything which is inconvenient or unconstitutional.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I by leave of the House ask this? Suppose a noble Lord puts down an Amendment which the Government are not willing to accept, which, in fact, they are very much against, and he omits to put down a corresponding Amendment to the Fifth Schedule for Scotland, or is unable, possibly owing to unfamiliarity with the terms of Scottish law, to do so adequately, would the Government put down an Amendment on the chance of the House accepting it?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I will undertake that the Government will consider any Amendments, and will see if any alteration is necessary of the Fifth Schedule. If they should be of opinion that they make any alteration necessary we will put an Amendment down, but we will not move it if the Amendment is defeated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think my noble and learned friend quite appreciates the point. The Amendment might be carried against the Government on the Third Reading. There would be no corresponding Amendment on the Paper with respect to Scotland. Am I to understand that all the Amendments which may be put down by those who do not quite agree with the Government upon the English Bill will be paralleled by the Government in respect of Scotland?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

If it should be necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It must become necessary. That will be the last opportunity. The Government could not say: "Your Lordships have carried it in the English Bill and we cannot put it in for Scotland; therefore it cannot be done on Third Reading." The only course would be to adjourn the debate in order to give time to put down a corresponding Amendment for Scotland. There would probably have to be a great many Amendments if there were many noble Lords like my noble friend Lord Banbury to put down Amendments.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Fortunately in your Lordships' House we are not quite so unreasonable as to put down a great many Amendments, but the promise I gave to the noble Earl was intended to cover that precise point. When we get the Amendments which are to be moved we will see if any of them involve an alteration of the Fifth Schedule. If it be so we shall put down the necessary Amendments. I do not think they will involve an Amendment, because the Fifth Schedule is only dealing with names like the sheriffs' courts and courts of summary jurisdiction. It is not very likely that an Amendment will be involved but if it should happen we will put it down, and if by inadvertence we fail to do that then, as the noble Marquess said, we should have in the last resort to adjourn the matter for a day or two. I do not think, however, that that contingency will arise.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think that will meet the case, but it is necessary to get this perfectly clear.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I cannot speak again except with the leave of the House, but I hope your Lordships will permit me to mention one point. We do not in the least want to do anything inconvenient and we are not trying in the least, as the noble Viscount seems to think, to avoid the Scottish Committee, which is not so formidable in this as in some other Governments. We are only trying to do what is convenient and incidentally to achieve that economy which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is always preaching.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for his extraordinarily lucid explanation. What I do object to, however, is that until this Bill appears in print the people in Scotland—I do not mean those who are very clever at reading Acts of Parliament but ordinary persons and the ordinary representatives of Scotland in this House or in another place—do not know what they are talking about. That is an objectionable thing and it is taking away the power of Parliament. I frankly admit that what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has said about having this Bill clear so that we do not have to refer to the English Act is a great advantage, but I think that the fact that the representatives of Scotland do not know exactly what they are talking about is an almost greater disadvantage.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, I venture to think that we are very much indebted to the noble Viscount who introduced this matter and who has vast experience of constitutional procedure. The matter goes a little further, I venture to think, than was explained by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House. If your Lordships will look at this proposal you will see that it adopts a course which—I will not say has no precedent but which is at least very unusual in the case of Scottish Bills. The usual way of adapting a Bill to Scotland is to insert a clause or a schedule which says that in the application of this Bill to Scotland there shall be the following modifications. That is quite commonly done. Every Session produces Acts in that form. An Act so adapted is the Act as it applies to Scotland, and the last people in the world to be incapable of understanding an Act so drawn are the Scottish lawyers. That was the procedure adopted in what is now known as the principal Act in this case, the Children Act, 1908. In that Act there is a section which makes some twenty-five different applications of the Act to Scotland and as far as I know Scottish lawyers have had no difficulty at all in understanding what is the Children Act as applied to Scotland.

This provision, however, goes beyond anything I have ever seen. If you eliminate subsection (2), the Bill will be complete in its form and you do not need another comma to make it applicable to Scotland, but it provides that a document is to be drafted by the Clerk of the Parliaments and that document, when certified by him, is to have the same effect as if it were an Act of Parliament. But it is not an Act of Parliament. What is more, as soon as the Clerk of the Parliaments has prepared that document and certified it, this Act is no longer to apply to Scotland, so that the only thing which will have any legal effect in Scotland is a document which is not an Act of Parliament, which has not received the Royal Assent, but which is a document certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I venture to think that that is a constitutional innovation which is completely wrong in principle. There is no reason for it be- cause it is perfectly possible to make this Act apply to Scotland. I do attach great importance to the fact that the clause provides that after a document signed by the Clerk of the Parliaments has come into existence, the Act which has been passed by us and which has received the Royal Assent will no longer apply to Scotland. The only thing Scotland will have is a document certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and that, I think, is entirely wrong. I suggest that it is a very dangerous precedent in constitutional law. Any law should have the full sanction of both Houses of Parliament and the Royal Assent, and that this document will not have and cannot have. I venture to think that the noble Viscount has done very well to draw attention to a very serious change in constitutional procedure.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 89:

Short title, construction, commencement and extent.

(3) This Act shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint, and the Secretary of State may appoint different dates for different purposes and different provisions of this Act.

LORD DARLING moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert, "But neither this Act nor any portion thereof shall come into operation until the arrival of such day as Parliament may hereafter determine." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment not with any kind of hostility to the Bill. I am content to believe that the Bill will do all the good that the noble Viscount who introduced it and who has conducted it through this House says it will do. But it appears to me advisable that that course should be taken which has lately been taken on another proposal, that is, the course adopted in the case of the Finance Act so far as it relates to the Land Taxes. The reason I move this Amendment is that, as your Lordships know, the country now is in a very critical position financially. There is no doubt about it. We have heard it from members of Parliament, from the Prime Minister and from the Lord Privy Seal I think we have heard it from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. We heard it yesterday put before us very strenuously by many members of your Lordships' House. It was put before us by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, in the strongest possible language, and it was put before us by another member of your Lordships' House, Lord Plender, whose words I should like to read.

Lord Plender has a large experience in this matter. He told us yesterday that he was last year a member of the National Expenditure Committee and he said: .… we thought that a sum approaching £100,000,000 a year might be saved, without any impairment of efficiency in the Departments affected or in the services rendered, or injustice being done to individuals. But that sum, large though it be, is insufficient. Later he took occasion to use these words, which govern us in deciding what Bill we should pass if that Bill involves any expenditure: The time has come, nay it is past, when the Government must reject doing the things that are desirable and only spend on the things which are absolutely essential.

This is a Bill which seeks to improve upon former legislation, upon the Children Act, 1908. I desire to impute nothing against this Bill. I will accept that it is designed to do, and ultimately will do, all that the noble Viscount who introduced it expects, but it will not do so at once and it will cost at once a great deal of money. There is no doubting the fact. We heard just now the discussion in which the noble Viscount, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, took part. Do we feel certain that the noble Viscount knows for certain what this Bill will cost, that he can tell us with anything like accuracy that his estimate will not be exceeded? The London County Council, which is the responsible body, believes that it will have to find a far larger sum than he said. I have noticed this about estimates. Whatever they concern, those are always right who think the estimate will be exceeded, and those are always wrong who think things will work out just as the estimate said or rather lower. The noble Viscount himself does not pretend that this Bill will provide any immediate good to the country. The noble Viscount said, though not in so many words: "Cast thy bread upon the waters for thou shalt find it after many days." It will be many days before this Bill produces any advantage to the country, but the cost will be immediate.

What is the remedy I propose? I do not propose that the money should be spent or that a halfpenny of it should not be spent. I do not propose to interfere with the operation of this Bill in any form when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I am proposing that it shall not be put into operation merely by the signature of the Secretary of State but in a way that another matter is to be put into operation. There is an Act of Parliament, dear to certain members of the Government, which imposes a tax upon land. It was felt that that was a very unjust tax, that the land could not bear it, and that it should not be imposed. No one was more strong in expressing that opinion than the noble Viscount who leads this House. What was done? The noble Viscount has explained to us that it was felt that the members of the Government who like a Land Tax and have helped to impose it should not be called upon to vote for its abolition. How was it settled? By proposing that the new Finance Act should not kill the Land Tax. Thou shalt not kill but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive. They neglected the caution "thou need'st not strive" and kept the Act alive.

The noble Viscount explained all this on the 14th June in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. He told us then that the Government had decided: that, instead of a tax being payable for the financial year ending 31st March, 1934, and each subsequent financial year, it is not to be paid until such financial year as Parliament may hereafter determine. Parliament is to determine, not some Secretary of State, not some official or bureaucrat. It is Parliament, and what higher and fairer authority could there be? Parliament is the proper taxing authority of this country.

I have put down this Amendment because I am satisfied, after listening to those who have a far greater and wider knowledge than I, that the country is in a dangerous position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says so. He cannot guarantee that there will not be supplementary estimates and that his Budget will balance. We are absolutely unjustified in spending a penny before we are certain that the country can really afford it. I rely on the words Lord Plender used yesterday and say that it is not a question of "This is a good thing. Let us buy it" but "Can we afford it at this moment?" Having heard the explanation of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill of what it will cost, I feel that we do not know what it will cost. We are in the same state of mystification as the County Council. I do not propose that the Bill should not become an Act of Parliament; I merely propose that no part of it should come into operation until Parliament says it shall come into operation. Parliament could decide that it should come into operation before this Session is out. If Parliament thinks that the condition of the country is such that it should become an Act of Parliament at once, Parliament can do it. Or Parliament can postpone it until any time, until the time when Parliament thinks that it is right for the country to embark upon this expenditure.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("But neither this Act nor any portion thereof shall come into operation until the arrival of such day as Parliament may hereafter determine").—(Lord Darling.)

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, if the only argument in favour of this Amendment is that of economy I think I can say that it is shortsighted economy and therefore no true economy. The same argument is being used in Scotland against putting into force the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act. We were able to show that in one county in all probability the wise use of probation in the case of a particular girl would have saved the county and the Exchequer over £200 that they have spent in keeping the girl in school. There are provisions in this Bill by which a child or young person sent to a school may, we hope, be saved from having afterwards to be sent to a Borstal institution where he or she will cost the nation about £90 a year. If a boy is sent to penal servitude it costs the nation about £100 a year and that is no true economy. A learned Judge has said, and I think his words worth bearing in mind, that the right treatment of a young offender on a first appearance before the court is of far greater importance than the particular sentence on a hardened offender by a learned Judge in the High Court. The question of three or five years' penal servitude for a hardened offender makes little difference, but the whole after career of a boy or girl may be decided by the treatment he or she receives when first brought before the court. We hope the provisions of this Bill will give us better treatment by the juvenile courts than we have had in the past, and I think it would be shortsighted economy to delay its application with the idea that thereby we should be saving large sums of money.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, if I may say a word in answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, I cannot agree that there is only one argument in favour of this Amendment. It seems to me that the argument put forward is that at the present time in your Lordships' House we have not had a satisfactory answer as to how much this Bill is going to cost, and we have not a satisfactory idea as to whether the country can afford it. On the Amendment as it stands it will be very simple to come back directly after this Bill is passed with a very much more satisfactory explanation to your Lordships of how much it is likely to cost, and a much more satisfactory explanation as to whether the country can afford it. In those circumstances your Lordships will have a much better idea as to whether you are inclined to say that the Bill should come into operation immediately. I do not quite understand the argument that this Amendment would necessarily mean a long delay. It would mean a sufficient delay for your Lordships to know a little more clearly what you are letting the country in for and I hope the House will follow Lord Darling.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment began by protesting that this was not an Amendment which was moved out of any lack of appreciation of the Bill, but of course I need not tell any of your Lordships who wish to face the facts that it is purely a wrecking Amendment, intended to prevent the Bill from becoming operative.

LORD DARLING

No.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

At any rate that would be the effect of it and that is shown by the reference to the defence I made a few days ago of the method adopted with regard to land valuation. He cited the well-known quotation, Thou shalt not kill but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive. That means: "I am not going openly to kill the Bill, but I will take jolly good care that it shall not become effective." The noble Lord says that we cannot afford the Bill and that it will cost a great deal. It is no use my reiterating the careful estimates of the Lord Privy Seal in which it is shown that actually the Bill will save money to the Exchequer and that, so far as the rates are concerned, it will probably cost less than the Exchequer will save. We have given the closest estimates we can and, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, we cannot afford to postpone the operation of the Bill.

The Bill is going to protect infant life, to prevent young girls from becoming prostitutes, and prevent boys from becoming habitual criminals. How many more criminals are we to manufacture, how many more girls are we to drive to destruction, and how many infants are to be destroyed before noble Lords think they can afford the expense of this Bill? It is not true that under this Amendment we could make our proposals law next week. We should have to have a new Act of Parliament and the noble Lord knows what chance there would be of getting a new Act through at this stage of the Session. It is five years since the Committee reported that these reforms were urgently required. I hope your Lordships will think it is fully time that those recommendations were implemented, and that this House and this country cannot afford to postpone the operation of this Bill any longer. I beg your Lordships to vote against this Amendment, realising, as you must, that it is not only one which no Government could accept, but one whose almost avowed object and whose certain effect would be to prevent the Act from becoming law.

LORD DARLING

My Lords, I believe I have a right to say a word in reply. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that whatever he may imagine he can detect in this Amendment I am entirely in favour of such legislation as this. I do not desire to make any number of boys criminals, or girls either. With regard to the Land Tax I pointed out that the course he took enabled the Government to say to certain of its members: "We have kept alive the Land Tax and we have only got to have a valuation, though it may be a long way off, and the Land Tax put in operation." What that conveyed to certain members of the Government is exactly the opposite of what the

First Schedule: