HL Deb 13 May 1941 vol 119 cc159-68

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, the Bill which it falls to me to-day to recommend to your Lordships' favourable consideration bears the title of the Temporary Migration of Children (Guardianship) Bill. It is a simple and straightforward measure, and I hope will prove to be entirely uncontroversial; for not only is it to the obvious advantage of the children concerned, but it arises from representations by those in charge of the children in Canada and in the United States that without it they cannot make themselves responsible for the proper care and welfare of the children committed to them.

It may, I think, be for the convenience of the House if, before I deal with the actual provisions of this Bill, I recall very briefly to the minds of noble Lords the circumstances which led up to it. The House will remember that, last summer, when France collapsed and the German menace came very near to our shores, most generous offers came both from the Dominions and from the United States of America to provide temporary homes for those children in this country whose parents were anxious to protect them from the perils of war. His Majesty's Government gratefully accepted these offers, and an organisation was set up, with the name of the Children's Overseas Reception Board, to make arrangements for the temporary migration of those children whose parents wished to take advantage of the invitation of our friends overseas. It is not necessary for the purposes of this Bill to go into the details of the Children's Overseas Reception Board scheme, but I would remind the House that under it altogether some 3,500 children were sent to the Dominions or to the United States of America. Of this total 2,662 were sent out officially by the Children's Overseas Reception Board to the Dominions, of whom 1,530 went to Canada and 838 were sent to the United States under the semi-official arrangements organised by the American Committee in London.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our grateful thanks to Mr. Lawrence Tweedy, the Chairman of the American Committee in London, and his colleagues for the very speedy and efficient manner in which they have tackled all the manifold problems of sea-evacuation, and also to those generous American hosts who made this unofficial scheme possible. Both in the Dominions and in the United States organisations were set up to deal with their guests. In the United States Mrs. Roosevelt herself became honorary President of the Committee, and no words can be good enough to express our gratitude for the care and kindness that have been lavished on them by the Committee under the tireless direction of Mr. Marshal Field, the Chairman, and Mr. Eric Biddle, the Executive Director.

Indeed it would be an entire misconception to suggest that the introduction of this Bill implied that there have been any shortcomings in the Children's Overseas Reception Board or the American scheme, or that the administration of the scheme needs any alteration. The very opposite is in fact the case. The purpose of this Bill is to assist and strengthen the existing organisation. The need for it arises from the legal position in Canada and in the United States. In those two countries, under their local law, certain steps which may be essential to safeguard the welfare of the child can only be taken if they are sanctioned by his or her legal guardian. For instance, the child might be suddenly taken ill with appendicitis or some other serious complaint, and an immediate operation might be necessary if its life was to be saved. Yet under the local law in some parts of Canada and the United States were a doctor to perform such an operation without the sanction of a legal guardian he would render himself liable to prosecution. Such a position is clearly intolerable. Under existing war conditions to obtain the sanction of the parent or guardian in this country would take days or even weeks. By that time the child might be dead. Or, to give another example, the temporary home to which the child had been sent might prove in some way unsuitable. Yet under the local law the responsible authorities might get into difficulties if the child were moved without the sanction of a legal guardian.

The United States Committee formed to take charge of the children have, from the start, beer, aware of these difficulties. They have made it clear that unless the present obstacles are removed they cannot undertake to continue to care for the welfare of the children entrusted to them and that they rely on us to take the necessary action to help them Similar representations have come from Canada. It is that situation which has led to the introduction of this Bill. I would emphasize that the object of the Bill is not to provide an official guardian to undertake the actual ordinary day-to-day care of the children. That, as heretofore, will be undertaken by foster parents most carefully chosen by and acting under the continuous supervision of the competent authorities in the countries concerned. The sole object of this Bill is to assist the welfare organisations in the two countries to carry out responsibilities by providing an official guardian to whom they can have recourse when such difficulties arise as, in Canada or the United States, cannot be solved without reference to a legal guardian. That is the sole purpose of the Bill.

Now I will, for a moment, turn to the administrative machinery and explain how in practice this Bill will work. On the passage of the Bill it is proposed to appoint His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington as guardian of the 838 children who were sent out to the United States by the American Committee in London with the knowledge and approval of the Children's Overseas Reception Board to be cared for by the United States Committee. It should be added that there are in the United States some 2,000 other British children. These went out under private arrangements. It is not proposed to appoint the guardian for a child privately sent out before the passing of the Act unless the child gets into actual difficulties and the United States Committee notify us that they wish the guardian appointed so as to enable them to deal with those difficulties. If, however, a case should arise in which a private individual in whose care a child has been placed under private arrangements should desire the appointment of an official guardian the Bill provides for the possibility of the appointment being made on the application of such a person.

In Canada it is proposed, if the Canadian authorities agree, to appoint as guardian the United Kingdom High Commissioner. It may be asked, what about Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? Why is similar legislation not necessary in their case? The reason is that in those countries similar difficulties did, in fact, arise, but their Governments themselves took action to deal with the situation by appointing some Minister or State Department to assume responsibility under the local law for the welfare of the children and the exercise of the powers of guardianship It may be asked why Canada could not follow this example. The reason lies, I understand, in the British North America Act and in the number of Provincial Legislatures which are charged with the duty of child welfare. Both Viscount Halifax and our High Commissioner will formally authorise the appropriate authorities such as the United States Committee or the Children's Aid Society in the Canadian Provinces to act on their behalf, and this authorisation will suffice to provide those authorities under United States and Canadian law respectively with the legal backing they require.

It will be noted that the parents' consent to the appointment of a guardian by the Secretary of State will be required in respect of all children sent overseas after the passing of this Act. With regard to the children already there under official or semi-official auspices the legal guardian will be immediately appointed, but under Clause 1 (3) if any parents object they can request the Secretary of State to revoke the appointment, and the Secretary of State not only may but must do so as soon as he is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the care of the child. The same applies to children who were sent out privately before the passage of the Act and for whom the official guardian has been appointed at the request of a competent authority or person.

It will, I hope, be quite clear from what I have said that this is no attempt on the part of the Government arbitrarily to supplant the authority of the home by the authority of the State. In the first place, it is a purely war measure, made necessary by war conditions, and it comes automatically to an end with the conclusion of the war period. Secondly, as I have already explained, it is always open to any parent to ask for the revocation of the appointment of an official guardian and this the Secretary of State is bound to do if he is satisfied that the parents or guardians have made satisfactory alternative arrangements for the care of the child. On the other hand, it is only right that I should point out to your Lordships' House that if parents were to take this step it is almost certain that the United States Committee would repudiate all further responsibility for the child, for whom the parents would have to make all further arrangements.

It is not indeed to be supposed that many parents will in any case wish to take advantage of this power of revocation. Parents in this country, I know, deeply appreciate the very elaborate and careful rules which have been laid down for the welfare of their children. The standards which must be followed by local welfare agencies are those prescribed by "The Children's Bureau." One of these rules provides that all European children received for care should be placed in homes of their own religious faith. Other rules are concerned, in detail, with the physical welfare of the children. As noble Lords will, I am sure, agree, we owe a very real debt of gratitude to those who are lavishing this care upon our children.

I recommend this Bill with every confidence to your Lordships' House. It is, the Government are convinced, in the interests of the children concerned. It is, moreover, most strongly pressed for by the welfare societies in Canada and the United States. We are under the deepest debt of gratitude to them. They have come forward in our hour of need. They have taken our children under their care. They have assumed complete financial responsibility for them. They have given them happy and safe homes. They have done all this relying on our assurance that we appreciated the difficulties involved and were willing to do all in our power to assist towards their solution. It is surely only right that we should now make it possible for them to fulfil the responsibilities which they have undertaken with such generosity. Failure to play our part would not only be difficult to justify morally but it would be disastrous to the interests of the children themselves. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cecil.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I fully support the object of this measure and I rise only to suggest for the consideration of His Majesty's Government some possible Amendments or additions to the present Bill. I am emboldened to do that by the fact that, for a large part of my life, I have been engaged in cognate matters and have been very much concerned with the appointment and removal of guardians and the way in which they fulfil their functions. There are four points which are of different magnitude—none of them perhaps very important—which seem to me to require attention. In the first place, it is to be noted that the Secretary of State can only act under this measure in a case where there is a request by any authority or persons who have undertaken responsibility for the welfare of children in the country. Well, I cannot help thinking that it is possible that there will be some infants in either the United States or Canada for whom no authorities or persons have undertaken responsibility. I am not sure that there will be no such children, and I venture to think that the Minister might consider the propriety of adding in subsection (1) of Clause 1, after the words "in consequence of war operations," some such words as these: "or failing the existence of such authority or persons who have undertaken responsibility for any such child and in the interests of any such child." Then the rest of the subsection would read on. My idea is to pick up the case of some children for whom there is nobody, in the words of the subsection, who has "undertaken responsibility."

That is the first point which I submit for consideration. My second point is this. It is within my knowledge, and it may well be within the knowledge of other noble Lords present, that there have been at any rate several if not a fairly large number of cases of people who returned to this country from either the United States or Canada upon, or shortly after, the outbreak of war and who naturally thought it not unwise to leave their children in the country from whence they came. The children so left in the United States or Canada are in exactly the same position, in fact, as children who have been sent out of the United Kingdom during the present war period, and I would suggest the insertion of some words to empower the Secretary of State also to protect the interests of those children who have been left out there without parents in the circumstances which I have suggested. The third point is a purely legal point, which may not seem very important to anybody but a lawyer. As a lawyer, I am not convinced that when the Secretary of State has once appointed a guardian under subsection (1) he is entitled, if that guardian dies or retires—because of course a guardian can retire—to appoint another. This is a position which may occur not infrequently. The point is purely a technical one. The legal question would be whether the Secretary of State, having exercised his duties under subsection (1) of the first clause, can go on doing it as occasion may require in relation to the same child. This is just a matter of precaution. I am not saying what the Courts would decide about it, but I think it is desirable to make the matter clear.

The last point I would mention for consideration of the Minister is this. The Secretary of State, like anyone else who is appointing a guardian of a child, ought in the ordinary way to have sufficient evidence to satisfy him that the person he is going to appoint is in all respects a suitable person to be so appointed. If the Secretary of State is going to do all these things he is really not going to have the time or the opportunity to do the necessary work himself. I would suggest that it is desirable to add a provision to say that in making any such appointment the Secretary of Stale may act on such in-formation as he thinks fit and may appoint such person as he, on such information, is satisfied is a proper person to be appointed. The fact is that the Secretary of State acting under this measure would be performing a function which is completely new as compared with any of the functions which are usually exercised by persons who appoint guardians, because he may have to act in over a thousand cases. I do not suppose he will have to act in quite so many, but no doubt there must be a large number of cases during wartime, and I suspect that his time is very greatly taken up. I am sure that if I were Secretary of State I should be desirous of having some distinct and clear power enabling me to act on the information given to me by others without any further personal inquiry. These are points which I venture to submit for the consideration of the noble Lord, and if they have been duly considered by him with the assistance of his advisers I shall be quite content.

LORD CECIL

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has spoken with all his authority and experience, and has suggested one or two points in relation to which alterations might be put into the Bill with the view of strengthening it. I understand that neither he nor anyone else in this House has any objection to the Bill. On the contrary, it has the universal support of this House. The noble Viscount's remarks, as I understood them, were merely directed to the question of making the measure more workable from a practical point of view. With regard to his first point, I gathered that he was a little afraid that there might be some children in the United States for whom no authority or person is, in fact, directly responsible.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Or in Canada.

LORD CECIL

Or in Canada. The intention of the Bill is that in such a case the position of the child would be brought to the notice either of the American Committee, or of the welfare associations in the Provinces in Canada, and they would immediately make application to take charge of this child. I will make certain whether this will, in fact, happen under this measure as it stands. If there is any doubt about it, I will look into it with a view to seeing whether the Bill can be strengthened in this particular respect.

Three other cases were raised by the noble and learned Viscount. One was the case of a child who was already in Canada or the United States when war broke out, and whose parents came back to this country leaving the child there alone to its own devices. Clearly, the case of such children is intended to be covered by the Bill and we will look into this also to see what can be done to make certain that they are covered. The third point was whether, when the Secretary of State has appointed a guardian and the guardian dies or retires, the Secretary of State has power to appoint anyone else. Clearly he is intended to have that power otherwise the Bill becomes quite unworkable. It is, as the noble and learned Viscount said, a legal point, and he, with his great knowledge of the law, is, of course, a much greater authority on such a matter than I am. There may well be need here for some action to make the matter clear, and I will look into this also.

Finally, the noble and learned Viscount raised the question of the Secretary of State appointing guardians. As I understood him, he said that he could not be certain that the Secretary of State would always be in a position to appoint a suitable guardian, because it would not be possible for him to look into the matter personally. I think that showed a certain misapprehension as to the working of the machinery of the Bill. In a case such as the noble and learned Viscount has described, the Secretary of State will appoint His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington as guardian. I can imagine no more suitable guardian for any child than Lord Halifax. He will in fact delegate his authority, with his own local practical knowledge, to the appropriate authorities in the various States of the United States. A similar procedure will be adopted in Canada, where the Secretary of State will appoint the High Commissioner in Canada, who is at present, as noble Lords are aware, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who is as suitable a person as Lord Halifax. Mr. MacDonald will take the same steps, and will delegate his authority to the provincial child welfare associations. I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason why noble Lords should worry about that particular matter. In conclusion, I should like to say that I am very glad that this Bill has met with so favourable a reception I felt sure that it would be uncontroversial, and I nope that it will pass rapidly through all its stages, because, as noble Lords are aware, it is very much needed in the countries concerned.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the relative advantages and disadvantages of this Bill as compared with a Bill which leaves out all reference to the war altogether, and is of general application.

LORD CECIL

My Lords, I think that a Bill of the kind suggested would not be at all desirable. The criticism which might be levelled against this Bill is that it is an attempt by the State to take over the authority of the parents. The Bill is designed to deal with a purely limited state of affairs, and is made necessary by the war, which has brought about a situation where certain children are in one continent and their parents are in another, so that it is impossible for the parents to carry out their parental responsibilities. As a general rule I think that it would be most lamentable for the State to try to take over the proper responsibilities of parents.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.