HL Deb 15 June 1948 vol 156 cc762-80

2.55 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, which is a short and quite uncontroversial measure, judging by its progress in another place, is twofold. First, it provides for the regulation of privately run nurseries, where children are looked after, either for the day or for the day and night for the working week; and, secondly, it provides for the regulation of minders who, for reward and in their own homes, look after children under five while their mothers are at work. The powers asked for in the Bill are essential if the health and welfare of young children, most of whom will be under five years of age, are to be safeguarded, and if mothers who go out to work, either from economic necessity or in the national interest, are to be able to do their jobs knowing that their children are properly cared for while they themselves are away from home.

Just as during the war we had to call upon married women to go back to work to produce munitions so now, in some parts of the country, we have no alternative but to ask them to go back to industries producing goods for export or essential home needs. Noble Lords will remember that during the war day nurseries and nursery classes were provided on a substantial scale, and almost wholly by the local authorities. Some local authorities also organised and supervised daily minding on a large scale. There were, during the war, about 1,400 day nurseries and 15, supervised daily minding schemes in operation. That was the work of the local authorities. Soon after the war ended, we began to adapt these war-time nursery arrangements to post-war needs. We foresaw that the period of transition from war to normal conditions was likely to be long, and that, in some areas, in the national interest, the need for women workers in industry might be just as great as it was for war production. That is exactly the situation in some of our exporting industries to-day—particularly, of course, in the textile industry.

The local authorities, as they did during the war, are still doing their best. They still provide nearly 900 nurseries with places for about 44,000 children under five, as well as 370 nursery schools for 19,000 children and 2,360 nursery classes for over 68,000 children. In the cotton-producing areas of the north-west, since the great export drive began, the local authorities have produced proposals for 52 additional nurseries and 12 additional nursery schools, which will be opened as soon as they can be constructed and staffed. The difficulties which a local authority have to overcome in providing new nurseries or nursery schools are greater to-day than they were during the war. Buildings which could then be used, with little alteration or adaptation, are now needed for their normal peace-time purposes. Sites in places convenient for the mothers are extremely hard to find, and building labour and materials are in great demand for housing and other urgent requirements of the present day. On the other hand, some mills and factories have spare accommodation which, with a modest expenditure of building labour and materials, can be turned into reasonably satisfactory nurseries. A nursery on the premises in which the mother works has always had certain important advantages over one elsewhere. Mother and child can see each other during the working day; the mother does not have to take the child to the nursery—perhaps in crowded public transport in bad weather and in a different direction from the factory—before she goes to work in the morning, and fetch it again at night when she is tired from the day's work. These are important considerations in favour of this novel arrangement, not only from the point of view of the convenience of the mother but also from the point of view of the health and well-being of the child.

In view of this new development and the satisfactory character of this provision, we have already in England and Wales some 80 nurseries operating in mills and factories, mainly in the cotton mills in the north-west of England. More of these factory nurseries are now projected and will soon be starting. Most of these factory and mill owners have been wise enough to seek the expert help of the local medical officer of health before setting up a nursery. They have been extremely co-operative. But some have not done so; it is not the universal rule. Even when the medical officer of health has been called in to advise at the start he has at present no statutory powers to inspect and supervise the nurseries at regular intervals. Everyone knows that young children are particularly susceptible to infectious diseases, and that unless nurseries are designed and staffed with this danger in mind the risks to the health of the children are serious. The care of babies and young children is a skilled job for trained people. Ignorance of the elements of nursery hygiene may lead to proposals to utilise odd corners of a factory for this purpose, without regard to such absolute essentials as adequate air space ventilation, water, and sanitary conveniences. Such conditions have already come to our notice.

We have also had our attention called to cases of severe overcrowding—a nursery suitable for twenty children, for instance, has been catering for as many as fifty. Sometimes, again, it is proposed to put the nursery in the charge of a woman who is no doubt kindly and maternal but who has little or no training or experience to qualify her for such a job. At the present time, children may be exposed to many risks—and have, indeed, already been exposed to them. A nursery may come into existence without a local authority knowing it is there, and it may continue without any supervision or any authority to inspect it. Even if it does come to the notice of a local authority, there are not sufficient powers at present to enable the local authority's medical officer of health to enforce minimum standards. It is to provide safeguards to health and welfare that this Bill has been introduced. It is a Bill which has had an almost universal blessing. All concerned with factory nurseries are at one in wanting the regulation and supervision asked for in this measure. The Society of Medical Officers of Health, the associations of local authorities, organisations like the Cotton Board (which is representative of both employers and employed), sensible mill-owners, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health are all of one mind, so far as this Bill is concerned.

The Bill, of course, goes beyond the nurseries to which I have referred— namely, those provided by employers on their premises. The demand for women workers has led to the setting up of nurseries by private persons in private houses for private profit. Nobody knows how many such places there are, but we are told by the London County Council that they are aware of the existence of forty-seven in London alone.

The practice of daily minding, which was traditional in Lancashire before the war, but is now unpopular there because of the better service which day nurseries have given mothers, is tending to grow. Whether the children are cared for in day nurseries or by daily minders, I think everyone will agree that the necessary provision for their health should be made. When, as we are doing, we ask mothers to return to industry in the national interest, we ought to be able to assure them that if their children go to a day nursery or to a daily minder while they are at work we shall do our best so to supervise that nursery or minder as to ensure that their children are well looked after. Without this Bill we are not in a position to do that.

I will now deal briefly with the main proposals in the Bill. Clause 1 requires a local health authority to keep a register. On this register they will place premises not wholly or mainly used as private dwellings where children are looked after for the day, of for any longer period not exceeding six days, and also persons living in their area who, for profit and in their own homes, look after children under five for the day or for any longer period not exceeding six days. The reference to a period "not exceeding six days" is necessary to cover nurseries or minders who look after the children of women employed at night or in day shifts, and where the children are looked after apart from their parents day and night for six days at a stretch, being returned to their parents at week-ends. Clause 1 goes on to enable any person caring or proposing to look after children in the way described, whether in the nursery or in a home, to apply to the local health authority for registration. The local health authority may refuse to register any premises or person if they are satisfied that the persons who will look after the children are not fit to have the care of children or if the premises are not fit to be used for that purpose. That is the main object of Clause 1.

Clause 2 enables the local health authority to limit the number of children to be received in a nursery or by a minder. It also enables the authority as respects nurseries to require that the person in charge shall have proper qualifications; that the nursery shall be adequately staffed and equipped; that the premises and the equipment shall be adequately maintained; that the children shall be properly fed and kept under medical supervision; and that records shall be kept of the children cared for. Subsection (6) of Clause 2 provides that in regard to existing nurseries no requirements as to the qualification of the person in charge, or as to staffing or equipment, shall be imposed so as to require anything to be done before a reasonable time has elapsed from the commencement of the Act. This allows existing nurseries a reasonable time to remedy defects of premises, staff or equipment.

Clause 4, subsection (1), makes it compulsory to register any premises used as a nursery within the meaning of the Bill. It provides that if at any time after the three months from the commencement of the Act a child is received in a nursery, and the nursery is not registered, or any requirement imposed by the local health authority is contravened or not complied with, the occupier of the nursery shall be guilty of an offence. Subsection (2) makes it an offence for a minder to look after children in his home without being registered if he is not a relative of the children, if the number of children exceeds two or they come from more than one household. We have tried here to limit registration and supervision to people who go in for the minding of children as a business. We do not want in any way to interfere with the kindly relative or friend who looks after one or two children while the mother is away. The term "relative" is denned in Clause 13. I hope the definition is sufficiently wide. These people will not commit any offence if they continue after this Bill becomes law to look after the children of other members of their own family. The neighbour who looks after children will not be interfered with so long as the children come from one household or, if they come from more than one household, they do not number more than two.

Clause 5 enables the local health authority to cancel registration if any of their requirements have not been met—for instance, if any person employed in looking after children in a nursery, or any minder or person employed by the minder to look after children, is not fit to do so; or if the premises are unfit to be used for the care of children. Again, there is a saving to ensure reasonable treatment for existing nurseries. Clause 6 requires the local health authority, where they propose to refuse or cancel a registration or to impose requirements, to give the person affected an opportunity to be heard by the authority. If aggrieved by the authority's decision that person may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.

Clause 7 provides for inspection of nurseries and minders' homes by any person authorised by a local health authority on their behalf. Subsection (1) gives such authorised person the right to enter a nursery at any reasonable time to inspect the premises and the children cared for there, the arrangements made for their welfare and any records relating to them. There is no such right of entry to a minder's home but, on the other hand, if the local authority's officer is refused admission to the home of a minder registered under Clause 1, or has reasonable cause to believe that children are being received for minding in a home which is not (but ought to be) registered, he may apply to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland to the sheriff, for a warrant authorising him to enter the home or premises and to carry out an inspection. We do not want to invade the home of the Englishman or the home of the Scotsman. What we have therefore seen fit to say is that no official may enter these homes unless authorised to do so by a justice of the peace or by a sheriff.

I think that those are the main provisions of this short Bill. It is uncontroversial. It is one which I think will have a very beneficial effect upon a large number of children and which will also encourage mothers to feel that their off-spring are being properly cared for while they are doing useful work. I hope that this Bill will receive your Lordships' favourable consideration. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

3.11 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I am sure that we all are most grateful to the noble Earl opposite for the very clear and persuasive way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to say straight away that we on these Benches consider the Bill to be a good Bill and, in these times, a necessary Bill, because, as the noble Earl said just now, it is largely occasioned by the need to stimulate our exports, particularly in the textile industry. It is necessary to make it as easy as possible for mothers with young children to go to work or to return to work, as the case may be. Therefore, we gladly give this Bill a Second Reading. We do not expect to have many Amendments to the Bill. However, I think that there was one point raised in another place to which further consideration was promised. I should like to express our appreciation of the way in which the Amendment proposed by my right honourable friend in another place has been received and incorporated in the Bill. It makes the Bill a better Bill.

This Bill strikes me as being a pretty good example of decentralization and of flexibility—which is somewhat unusual with anything connected with the Ministry of Health. In fact, the Bill is well above the average. Although there is the disadvantage that some local authorities may make less use than others of their powers under this measure, none the less I think that the advantages of decentralization and flexibility so outweigh that possible defect that we can accept it. In our opinion, the local welfare authorities, as opposed to the central administration of the Ministry of Health, are certainly the right people to administer this Bill. It is also absolutely right that employers have been catered for in the way in which they have. I am certain that that is right, because surely the question whether you have a day nursery in a cotton mill or in a works, or whether you have the local authority's day nursery, depends to a great extent upon the location of the factory and where the workers have to come from. As the Bill now stands, it should be possible for local welfare authorities to make arrangements to give mothers the facilities they require, and, in cases where factories are in the right places for day nurseries to assist employers to set up such nurseries or to improve their own day nurseries till they reach the standard which we all wish to see. I think that progressive employers will welcome inspection of these centres, provided the inspection is done by progressive inspectors. I cannot speak for the textile industry, but I feel sure in my own mind that that is so.

There will no doubt be a certain number of borderline cases, such as those mentioned when the first clause was discussed in another place. There are some points and some cases which are not very clear, as, for instance, the phrases "wholly or mainly," "who for reward receive into their homes," and "relative." There will be many borderline cases with which local authorities will have to deal, and for that reason I was rather surprised that, when the suggestion was made in another place that the co-operation of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children should be sought, the suggestion was turned down rather coldly. There will be borderline cases in regard to which the co-operation of that Society, with all its experience and with its trained staff, would be very useful to the local government authorities.

I noticed two other points in the debate in another place. The first was a statement that the local authorities were not expected to recruit extra staffs. That was a welcome statement and I hope it turns out to be right, because it is so easy, when an authority is starting a new service, to recruit extra staff and then find perhaps that in certain parts of the country they will be underemployed. Therefore, that statement was most welcome to me. The other statement that I noticed was to the effect that the people who did the work were qualified. I take that to be a reference to the inspectors. I wonder whether the noble Earl, in his reply, could tell us how they are qualified—whether it is by experience or otherwise. What is their qualification? Because this is a most important point. Merely to say that they are qualified does not make us much the wiser.

Having said that, may I now make one or two more general remarks? It is very easy to be sentimental about this Bill. It is easy to give it a welcome without being clear in our minds exactly why we welcome it. The Government spokesman in another place said that the proper place for a child under the age of two is at home, and that mothers of children under the age of two should be positively discouraged from going to work and leaving their children. We entirely agree with that statement, and we are glad that it should have been made, but I think that in principle and as an ideal we should like to go a little further, because two years is a very young age. If times were easy and the need for women to go to work, especially in the textile industry, were not so essential, then I doubt whether we should be satisfied with that age, although we have to be satisfied with it now.

There is another matter which I should like to mention. I am not speaking for anyone else now; I am speaking my own mind on this point, because there is no representative present on the Episcopal Bench. It occurs to me that a day nursery is likely to be a secular place. I do not want to stress the point unduly. If anyone in charge of a day nursery put up, say, a reproduction of a Florentine picture of the Holy Family or of an angel, probably someone would come along and take it down. I do not wish to take the point further now, but I mention it as a consideration which we should bear in mind in dealing with matters of this kind. To sum up: we consider that this Bill is a right and proper Bill for the times and, as such, we warmly welcome it and support its Second Reading, but as an expedient. I, for my part, do not consider it ideal, because the ideal, as I see it, ought to be one of healthy children looked after by competent and understanding mothers in happy and Christian homes.

3.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, I am impressed by the welcome which has been given to this Bill. I am also impressed by the case which the noble Earl has made for its Second Reading. I would not, of course, oppose the Second Reading, but it may be opportune to draw attention to certain points which are deserving of consideration at a later stage. I hope that His Majesty's Government are convinced that it will be possible to apply this Bill to the private child-minder who receives children into her own home and can look after them. It appears to me to be an exceedingly difficult provision to enforce. I hope that the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us that this point has been considered and that His Majesty's Government are optimistic. There is the greatest danger in passing legislation unless we are convinced that it is really practical to enforce it in all or at least in a substantial majority of cases.

In the second place, I would venture to point out that some of the conditions which may be required for the continued registration of premises will need a little further elucidation. First, there is the question of qualified persons. When we were dealing with the Children Bill a little while ago, all sides of the House agreed that one of the most serious considerations of the present day was the great lack of persons who were qualified to look after children, and I should be very sorry indeed if the day nurseries invaded the narrow, limited field of qualified persons. It is surely much better to consider, not the qualifications but the character and aptitudes of the person who is to run a day nursery, and to leave for the deprived children's homes the very small supply of technically qualified persons.

I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it is possible to be a little more precise on the effects of the clause dealing with the requirement of medical supervision for children in day nurseries. Of what exactly does medical supervision consist? Does it merely mean that a doctor is at call in case of need, or that a doctor has approved the arrangements; or is there to be some further requirement for regular visits by medical men? If that is the case, we should consider whether the resources of the medical profession are such as to allow regular visits to these day nurseries. Finally, I hope the noble Earl will toe able to tell us something of what is in his mind with regard to the records which the day nurseries are to keep. I suppose there is a strong case for some record of attendances. Does the noble Earl also mean to provide for records of growth, weight, measurements, and so on, which are very valuable in relation to children? These are minor points which we could well deal with at a later stage, and I do not expect the noble Earl to be precise in answering every one of them. On the whole, I support the Bill, and trust that the day nurseries will not by this means be decreased, but rather that the movement may be stimulated.

3.24 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE

My Lords, I do not propose to take up more than a few moments of your Lordships' time, but more than one noble Lord, in referring to this Bill, has drawn attention to its connection with the textile industry. It is as one who has been closely connected with that industry that I venture to make one or two points. A great deal has been said, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, during the last two years and more, on the great need for incentives in industry. Those of your Lordships who have made those points have always, I think, been at pains to make it clear that in referring to incentives they are not referring to money incentives and that there are a great many other forms of valuable incentive. I regard the objects of this Bill as trying to provide such an incentive. It seems to me that the Bill aims at providing an incentive to married women with young children to contribute something towards industry or other important work.

I imagine—and I certainly hope—that it will be generally admitted that no country, and least of all this, can continue its existence without the background that is achieved from a proper home family life. I imagine there must be thousands of women, conscious of that fact, who hesitate to go out to work because they doubt whether their children will be properly looked after in the various nurseries, and by minders and so on, while they are working. They hesitate to do that because, perhaps, they have lack of confidence in the existing establishments which have been set up, either by firms or by private individuals, whether or not for gain for this purpose. That means that if they come to the conclusion that they cannot trust their families to these places they forgo any increment to their incomes—an increment which may well be of great service to them in helping them to look after their families in the way that they would like. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to relieve them of their worries and hesitations in that respect; and, to that extent, I believe that it provides an important form of incentive in the industries where these people work.

That brings me to my second point—I think it is common knowledge now that the sellers' markets overseas are rapidly filling up. It is common knowledge also that where these market changes occur, one of the symptoms is that buyers become more and more particular about the quality of the goods which they are offered. I am quite sure that that is the experience of thousands of industrialists who are trying to export to-day. Whilst one must say that at all times, and not only particularly now, exporters should do their utmost to ensure that the goods they send out of the country bear out the proverbial British quality, it is to-day more than ever vital that that should be the case. I believe that nothing contributes more to faulty individual work than worry on the part of the worker, whether a man or a woman—and I should suggest particularly in the case of a woman—over his or her children. Anything that can relieve workers of that worry will contribute towards a better quality of work and, as a result of better quality, a greater quantity of exports. Those are the two main points I want to make in welcoming this Bill.

There is one further point I would add. As I understand it, the Bill deals with establishments where there is no form of teaching attached, as contrasted with the case of nursery schools. I realise that under the special circumstances which exist to-day there is a case for both nurseries, as referred to in this Bill, and for nursery schools. No doubt, in the years to come, there will continue to be that need for both these types of establishment. No doubt, also, as the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading pointed out, the difficulty about increasing the numbers of the nursery schools is not only the difficulty of building new premises but, I would suggest, the difficulty of finding suitably trained people to run them. I hope, however, that when these difficulties become less acute if there is a question of giving preference either to nurseries or to nursery schools, preference will be given rather to the nursery schools where some form of education is given than to the nurseries where no education is given. With those few remarks, I welcome this Bill.

3.30 p.m.

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill one question, and it relates to the word "qualifications." I have rather an apprehension about "qualifications," if they are to be laid down by some central authority, or even by a major authority. Surely all experience goes to show that the best people to run these temporary nurseries are people who are qualified by experience, rather than on paper. A marked tendency to-day—and it is one of the most serious tendencies of the time—is to say that you are qualified if you have passed, say, some particular diploma examination at the London School of Economics, but may be unqualified even though you have spent forty years successfully in doing a job. That, as I say, is one of the troubles of the day—paper qualifications. I suppose that the person to determine whether or not an individual is qualified to take charge of one of these nurseries will probably be the medical officer of health. I have the utmost regard for some of the medical officers of health of this country. They have done grand work. They have been responsible for improvements in water supplies, sanitation and housing, and they have done much with regard to D.P.H. at Glasgow and all over the country. Their labours have been magnificent. For all that, I am not sure that their particular experience makes them the best people to determine who is to look after children, well or sick, in these nurseries, or to lay down the qualifications for such persons—or, indeed, to deal with the children in this connection.

After all, if one is ill one does not send for the medical officer of health. It is not his job to look after people who are ill. He is a man who has to be trained in the science of preventive medicine, not curative medicine. The trouble, of course, is that Whitehall—particularly—believes that all men are born equal. I have had to deal with a large number of very fine medical officers of health, and I have paid tribute to some of them as quite outstanding men. On the other hand, I have known others who are complete "duds" (I must use the word), particularly when they get outside their own line of country—namely, meat inspection and things of that kind, which they do very well. They are not well suited to dealing with matters such as we are discussing now. They have done wonderful work in their own sphere, but it is difficult to believe that they are the right people to be entrusted with this task.

I am convinced that, if this scheme is really to be made successful, in every case it will be necessary to secure the co-operation—the free giving of which is so characteristic of our experience of work of this kind in this country—of the voluntary effort, particularly of the volunteer women. You must secure the co-operation of people who will take an interest in these day nurseries and nursery schools. They did it before the war with good results; but if it is said that this is to be a purely Government show, and that it is a case of "Hands off," so far as people such as those who have devoted much of their lives to the work of organisations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and to philanthropy in these matters are concerned—and may I say that some splendid women have worked in this field?—the results which we all desire will not be achieved. If such people are to be excluded from this organisation, then you are setting the clock back and not forward. The one chance of success for a Bill of this kind is to ensure the least amount of bureaucracy possible—especially the paper bureaucracy with regard to written qualifications—and the maximum of humanity and the human touch.

3.35 p.m.

LORD DARWEN

My Lords, as a Lancashire man and one who has been engaged in the cotton industry all my life, I feel that I would like to say a word or two on this Bill. I share fully all the regrets of the noble Lords who have intimated that they regard it really as a backward step to have again to bring into industry the mothers of young children. I agree that it is necessary at the present time, but I hope that that necessity will not last for many years. But I feel that, while the necessity does last, it is absolutely essential that the best possible conditions should be provided for the children in the day nurseries. I am sure that the people of Lancashire—employers and local authorities—who are setting up these day nurseries are quite determined that there shall be first-rate conditions for the children. It may well be that we shall gain valuable experience in addition to that which we have already with regard to the health possibilities of this kind of nursery. Therefore, I welcome the Bill, and I also welcome very much the speech of the noble Earl who I opened the debate this afternoon.

There is just one point on which I am a little uneasy, and that is with regard to the question of appeals from the decision of the local authorities to the magistrates. Now our towns in Lancashire are, generally speaking, rather small places, and the people who serve as magistrates and on the local authorities are frequently the same people. Often, therefore, it would be a case of appealing from John and James to James and John. I would much rather that the appeal were to the Minister. That would be one way to get out of the difficulty—which your Lordships must face up to—arising from the fact that feelings in Lancashire on this subject are very acute. We have had a good deal of experience of children being taken out to be cared for during the day while their mothers are at work. That has been going on for a good many years, and there has been a good deal of propaganda against it, in which, I may say, I have taken part. The result is that feelings on the whole subject are very strong in Lancashire, and it may well be that people who are leading figures in a local authority will be so strongly opposed to day nurseries that it will be difficult for employers to set them up. I hope that that is a point which will be considered by the Government. I think that an appeal in the first instance, at any rate, from the local health authority to the Minister, would be better than having an appeal to the local Bench of magistrates. With that one suggestion I warmly welcome this Bill.

3.38 p.m.

LORD CAWLEY

My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill spoke of the need for it from the point of view of enabling children to go into day nurseries while their mothers are at work. But there is another aspect of this matter, which I feel certain will grow. I happen to know of one day nursery which was set up for the purpose of taking in children when their mothers were at work. That nursery was run by a lady who, so far as I know, has no paper qualifications, with assistants who also, I believe, have no paper qualifications. But all those people are much interested in that kind of activity and they are doing very good work indeed. What I want to call attention to is the fact that their experience has been as follows. The people who come to the nursery have not been confined to mothers who go to work, depositing their children while they do so; another class who come are women who wish to leave their children while they do their shopping. I believe that that is something which is going to continue. It must be a great relief to a mother to find some good place where she can leave her child while doing that work. In these days when domestic help is so difficult to get, even members of your Lordships' House may at times find it difficult to deal with children, and no doubt that experience will make you more sympathetic on this subject and help you to understand it better than you might have done hitherto. I think this is a movement which will extend. In regard to the question of qualifications, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has pointed out that it is undesirable that we should draw people from other nursing services. I hope nothing in the Bill will make it more difficult to staff these homes, or do anything which will curtail or delay this very desirable movement.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, I should like to say something from the point of view of my own experience. During the war, in my house in the country, I had two day nurseries, first one and then the other, of up to 28 children, with their nurses and attendants. I wish to say that the inspection and supervision to which we were submitted by the local authority were admirable, though I am talking, of course, of my own county council. It was so good that it was hard to imagine they had not been brought up to it. If the present system of inspection, supervision and attendance by doctors (who made very little money for all they did; for the children were very frequently ill, as children are) is continued, we shall be working on the right lines.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of noble Lords who spoke in regard to the character and capability of the various kinds of child minders. I would also like to be clear whether the owners of the homes referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 1, and also in subsection (2) of Clause 4, include any reference to those who have adopted children. I should like it to be made clear that adopted children are to be of a different status from those not adopted, and are to be treated as natural-born children by those who have adopted them. That point does not seem to be noted in the Bill, so far as I can see. If the noble Lord could clear up that point, I should be grateful.

3.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for the friendly welcome they have given this Bill. It will be of great encouragement to all those concerned in its operation, as well as to those of us who are responsible for endeavouring to secure its passage through Parliament. I would like to answer some—I fear not more than some at this stage—of the points raised in discussion. I would gladly reply on Committee stage to those points which I may be unable to answer to-day. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised two points which I should like to answer now He complained that we were inclined to turn a cold shoulder to the services that had been offered us by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall welcome any assistance or advice that the Society can give us, probably through its local branches in particular cases. The local health authorities will naturally be most anxious to obtain any information the Society can provide about the unsatisfactory conditions in certain homes. I think what I said just now about particular cases applies generally. I would like also to assure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that we shall welcome a ay help we can get—I speak of course for the local authorities who will be operating this Bill—from voluntary agencies and from individuals with special knowledge of child care.

The second important point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was the qualifications of local inspectors who are sent by the local authorities into these nurseries. They will either be doctors or health visitors, who are already concerned with the care of children under the Child Life Protection Acts. These health visitors are qualified nurses with special experience of children, so that in all cases these inspectors will be people who really know how children should be cared for.

Another issue of some importance was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and concerned the supply of qualified persons to do this work. He was afraid, I think, that we should be calling upon trained nurses, who are, naturally, much in demand at the present moment for other purposes. Only one trained nurse will be required at each nursery. The other staff will be nursery nurses, not trained nurses in the medical sense, but persons who have had training under the child care organisations. We are assured by the Ministry of Labour that there will be no difficulty in securing this sort of staff. The noble Earl also asked about the purpose of keeping records. These records will not be unnecessarily elaborate or detailed. The sort of thing they will cover is attendance in the nurseries, and such simple facts about the children as their weight and state of health on admission, and their state of health at given moments. I do not think this will be putting an unnecessary burden on those who have to keep these records and they are essential to give a general background of the nursery. The noble Earl also seemed to be a little doubtful about enforcement in the case of child minders looking after children in their homes. I assure the noble Earl that we are satisfied that this measure can be enforced by the local health authorities. They will have a qualified staff, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not have the co-operation of all people of good will who care about children.

I welcome the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, to the importance of incentives. I think this Bill will provide a new incentive which will affect many people in his part of the world, and it will be a contribution, in a modest way, to the export drive in textiles. I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that in the qualifications for which we are asking we should certainly include experience of looking after children, as well as paper knowledge. He need have no fear that that aspect of the matter will be disregarded. I took note of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, about the machinery provided for appeals against decisions of local authorities. This point will be carefully exam- ined before the Committee stage. I am afraid that this has been rather a cursory reply to the number of points that were raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate, but I think they mainly concerned Committee questions, and I shall be delighted to reply more fully when we reach the Committee stage. I would just like to repeat how grateful I am to the House for the keen interest that has been taken in this matter, and for the support given to the principle of this Bill.

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