HL Deb 24 June 1948 vol 156 cc1223-9

4.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Registration of nurseries and child-minders]:

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) moved to add to subsection (1): The registers kept under this subsection shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times. The noble Earl said: The first Amendment standing in my name is to make sure that the registers of nurseries and child-minders are open for inspection by the public at any reasonable time of the day. It is clearly right that any person—for example, a mother who is thinking of placing a child in a day nursery, or in the care of a minder—should be able to find out by actual inspection of the register whether particular premises which are being used as a nursery, or whether a particular person who is minding children, are in fact, registered, and that the same individual should have access to any particulars contained in the register. That is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The object of the next Amendment is to give the local health authority power to refuse to register a person as a minder if there is someone living in the premises whose presence makes it undesirable for the place to be used for children—for example, someone suffering from tuberculosis or other infectious disease. If this Amendment is accepted, it will add another power to that which is already provided for in relation to the fitness of the person who is asking to be allowed to act as a child-minder. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("fit") insert ("(whether because of the condition thereof or for any reason connected with other persons therein)").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I agree that there should be power to exclude premises where there is living someone who is subject to an infectious disease, but on the face of it I should have thought that the words in the Bill provided sufficient power, and that this Amendment restricted the powers, instead of increasing them. However, if the view of the Government is that these words are necessary and do not limit the powers of inspection, I have nothing more to say.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

It is really a matter of drafting, and the view of the draftsman is that this form of words is necessary if the local health authority are to be in a position to exercise this power. It does not mean that the minder will be refused registration. It is quite probable that the local health authority will wish to satisfy themselves that all necessary precautions are taken, in order to prevent any contact between the infected person and the children. It means merely that the local authority are in a position to make absolutely certain that there is no serious risk of children being exposed to this infection.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

In that case, registration would be given under certain conditions?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Power to impose requirements in connection with registration]:

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) The local health authority may by order made as respects any premises or person registered under the foregoing section require the taking of precautions against the exposure of the children received in the premises to infectious diseases. The noble Earl said: There is nothing in the Bill, as it now stands, to prevent either a nursery or a minder from taking in children suffering from an infectious disease, and that point is not covered by the existing law. This new subsection (3), which it is proposed to insert, will cover this contingency and will also enable a local health authority to require that persons working in a nursery or minder's home—including persons by whom the children's food is prepared—are carefully watched from this point of view. It gives to the children an added protection from infection, either by other children or by persons living and working in the premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Certificates of Registration]:

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Where any such requirements are imposed, varied or revoked after the certificate has been issued," and insert: On any change occurring in the circumstances particulars of which are stated in a certificate issued under this section. The noble Earl said: This subsection, as it stands at the moment without Amendment, does not provide for the issue of an amended certificate when a minder has changed his or her address. This is a matter of some importance, because a minder may move to far less desirable premises from the point of view of the surroundings in which it is desirable to place children. This Amendment puts right the defect by providing that an amended certificate shall be issued whenever a change occurs in the particulars stated in the certificate, and these particulars, in the case of a minder, include the address. A minder who changes his address will have to notify the local health authority, and if the local health authority approve, he will have that change inserted as an amendment in the original certificate of registration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 24, leave out from beginning to the second ("the") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I take it that this Amendment relates to the same purpose as the first Amendment?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Yes.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

In those circumstances, we think that it is a necessary Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Penalties for failure to register and for breach of requirements under section two.

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (z) to insert: (3) Where a person has been registered under section one of this Act and while he is so registered he acquires a new home, then until he has given notice thereof to the local health authority he shall not for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection be treated as being so registered in relation to the reception of children in the new home. The noble Earl said: Having heard that the noble Viscount opposite concurs in the object of this Amendment, I will not weary the House by giving my reasons for it, which are the same. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

The Amendment contains the words: "registered under section one of this Act." I imagine that that applies not only to subsection (1) (a) but to subsection (1) (b) of Clause 1. The object of the Amendment is to deal both with those who keep actual children's homes and with those who mind children in their own homes. I take it that it is desired to take these powers in respect of both those categories.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The Amendment is intended to cover both subsection (1) (a) and subsection (1) (b) of Clause 1. If the interpretation we have put on it is wrong, I will see that the matter is rectified on the Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that in the case of a first offence under subsection (2) of this section the fine which may be imposed shall not exceed five pounds. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to reduce from £25 to £5 the maximum penalty that can be imposed for a first offence on the part of a child-minder. Through pure carelessness, and without a desire to defraud or deceive, a child-minder may not realise that registration is necessary; and it was felt that for an act of carelessness of that type a maximum penalty of £5 is more appropriate than a much larger one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I think this is a distinct improvement. The noble Earl has put his finger on one of the danger spots in the Bill—namely, that the announcement of these penalties may deter a certain number of harmless old ladies who are in the habit of minding children and who, when they see these penalties, may discontinue their good work. Therefore I think this reduction is altogether a good thing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Cancellation of registration]:

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 21 and insert ("as respects any premises or person registered under the said section one, that circumstances exist which would justify a refusal under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of that section to register the premises or person").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This is consequential upon the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 26, leave out ("(c) of this section") and insert— ("(b) of this section on the grounds that the premises are not fit to be used for the reception of children.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Short title, interpretation, and extent]:

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in the definition of relative, after "sister" to insert "half-brother, half-sister." The noble Earl said: In his speech on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that he did not wish to interfere with actual relatives who look after children of their own family. We now come to what I suppose is the legal definition of those in whom kinship may be presumed. I am suggesting that a half-brother and a half-sister should be included among those relatives listed in the interpretation clause as being those to whom this Act does not apply. I suggest that it would be convenient to include them because many cases must occur in which an older half-brother or half-sister is given the task of looking after the children of a second marriage by one of their parents. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, after ("sister") insert ("half-brother, half-sister").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think I can relieve the noble Earl's mind of what may have been a misapprehension. If he will read subsection (2) of the interpretation clause, he will see that it says: 'relative' means a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, or aunt, whether by consanguinity or affinity…"— that is to say, whether related by blood or by law. A half-brother or a half-sister is clearly a relative by blood of the brother or sister for whom he or she wishes to be responsible. Those relations, therefore, are covered by the existing provisions of the Bill.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I am grateful to the noble Earl for looking into this matter, and on his assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

It may be for your Lordships' convenience if I deal with the next two Amendments together. They are for the purpose of including in the clause great-uncles and great-aunts. Here I must declare an interest: I am a great-uncle myself, and my wife and I devote a certain amount of time to minding a family of great-nieces and great-nephews. We all know that in nursery mythology uncles are sometimes supposed to be wicked, but nobody has ever said a word about great-uncles or great-aunts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, leave out ("or").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I share the noble Earl's sympathy for great-uncles and great-aunts. As a potential great-uncle myself, I also have to declare an interest. But I feel that perhaps the noble Earl's fears are exaggerated, because these relations will not be obliged to register under the Bill unless they take in their great nieces or great-nephews both for profit and in conjunction with children from other homes. I am quite certain that, in the average case, relatives of this type either charge nothing at all or make only a small charge for looking after these fairly close relations. I do not therefore think that many of these great-uncles and great-aunts will be in the least affected by the provisions of the Bill. If we were to draw the provision more widely than it is at present drawn—as the noble Earl suggests—I think we should have to deal with a large number of borderline cases. The champions of the first cousins might come forward and say: "If great-uncles and great-aunts are to be included, why not the first cousins as well?" I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel his fears are not so well-founded as he may have supposed, and that he will allow the matter to rest where it is.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on this question. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed.