CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 March 1948 vol 154 cc531-614

2. 43 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 Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children, etc.

1.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority with respect to a child in their area appearing to them to be under the age of seventeen—

1. (a) that he has neither parent nor guardian or has been and remains abandoned by his parents or guardian or is lost; or
2. (b) that his parents or guardian are, for the time being or permanently, prevented by reason of mental or bodily disease or infirmity or other incapacity or any other circumstances from providing for his proper accommodation, maintenance and upbringing; and
3. (c) in either case, that the intervention of the local authority under this section is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child,

it shall be the duty of the local authority to receive the child into their care under this section.

(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise a local authority to keep a child in their care under this section if any parent or guardian desires to take over the care of the child, and the local authority shall, in all cases where it appears to them consistent with the welfare of the child so to do, endeavour to secure that a parent, guardian, relative or friend of the child takes over the care of him.

(4) Where a local authority receive a child into their care under this section who is then ordinarily resident in the area of another local authority,—

1. (a) that other local authority may at any time take over the care of the child; and
2. (b)the first-mentioned authority may recover from the other authority any expenses duly incurred by them under Part II of this Act in respect of him (including any expenses so incurred after he has ceased to be a child and, if the other authority take over the care of him, including also any travelling or other expenses incurred in connection with the taking-over).

Any question arising under this subsection as to the ordinary residence of a child shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

LORD AMULREE moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that this section shall not apply to a child in the care of a voluntary organisation registered under this Act.

The noble Lord said: The main reason for putting down this Amendment to Clause 1 is that it will make rather clearer the position of children in voluntary homes. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill makes it the duty of the local authority to take all these children deprived of normal home life, but reading rather more into the Bill one finds in various other clauses a difference between children in the care of the local authority and children in the care of voluntary homes. That is particularly so in Clause 33. I think the intention of the Report, upon which this Bill is founded, was that the children in voluntary homes should be separate from the children in local authority homes, since the local authority—I think I am right in saying this—would not assume parental rights over the children in voluntary homes. That point is not clear in the first part of the Bill, and I feel that if this Amendment were made to Clause I it would ensure that the position was clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amulree.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Bill contemplates two methods of dealing with children. There are the group of children who are received into the care of local authorities, in regard to whom, of course, there may or may not be a resolution under Clause 2; and there are the second group which refer to children in voluntary homes. The object of this Amendment is to put the two into completely watertight compartments. I understand what the noble Lord had in mind, but this Amendment would not achieve his purpose, because there might be cases in which the two would overlap. What would the noble Lord do in a case like this? Suppose that a child runs away, or children run away, from a voluntary home? There may be good reason for that, or there may not; and it may be a matter for investigation hereafter. But it is a thing which has happened and which may happen again. If they do run away, and so long as investigations are not made, it is obviously necessary and proper—and the noble Lord would be the first to agree with this—that the local authority should look after them. They are then within the care of the local authority. Therefore, you cannot have this complete dichotomy between the two which the noble Lord seeks to have.

If some accident occurred to the home run by the voluntary association, or if there were some scandal attaching to the voluntary association, the local authority would have to be in the background in order to cope with the situation. It could then be dealt with in a matter of hours, if not indeed minutes. Therefore, I cannot say that these provisions of this Bill shall not apply to a child in the care of a voluntary association. I can assure the noble Lord that in the normal case we do not, in the least, want to interfere with voluntary associations, so long as they are run in accordance with the requirements of the Home Office, who must see that they are run in the best way. Subject to that, the noble Lord will see that it is impossible to say that under no circumstances can the provisions of the Bill in regard to local authorities apply to children in voluntary associations. With that explanation, and the assurance which I have given, I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Perhaps I may say a word upon this particular Amendment. Before doing so, I would like to welcome the Lord Chancellor back from Italy; we are glad to have him with us again, especially on this Bill. I would also like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for giving us ample time between the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill. In the intervening period we have been able to go pretty fully into this Bill and I hope that the proceedings of the Bill in Committee in this House can be finished to-day. In regard to this particular Amendment, I would add to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that surely this particular case is entirely covered by paragraph (c) which reads: in either case, that the intervention of the local authority under this section is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child. If that child, although it has no parent or guardian, is being properly looked after in a properly conducted voluntary home, then the intervention will not be necessary, and the case will come under paragraph (c). Therefore, I am at one on this with the noble and learned Viscount in thinking that this Amendment is not necessary, and that in the kind of cases mentioned the local authority ought to have this power in reserve. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

After the extremely full explanation of the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved to add to subsection (3): provided that where the parents or guardians of a child under 17 have been sent to prison for cruelty or neglect, the child shall remain in the care of the local authority for a probationary period after he is returned to his home until such time as those appointed under the provision of this Act are satisfied that his parents or guardian can care properly for the child. The right reverend Prelate said: In some of its provisions this Bill covers the case of children whose parents are so negligent that the only thing to do is to remove them from the care of their parents. As drafted, however, it does not deal with the prior stage, and it stems to me that that separation is rather an artificial one. In the experience of a good many field workers, some of these homes need not have been broken up if only the parents, and especially the mothers, had been helped and guided in time. This is not happening and, as drafted, the Bill will not help it to happen. Some of these quite indescribable homes would not have got into that condition if the parents could have been given good and friendly advice at an early stage. Even after convicted parents have served their sentence of imprisonment, and when the children have come back to the home, something could be done.

We cannot have a Children Bill every year and, therefore, it seems desirable to cover the whole situation. A good deal of evidence is now before us about these homes. Bad homes are not always due to viciousness; they are often due to incompetence and ignorance; and if under some provision in this Bill power were given to a visitor—I will not specify under what particular Department—who could really help the parents to do their job, it might not be necessary, in some cases at any rate, to break up the home and take the child from his natural parents. I understand that drafting difficulties may arise on this point, and I am not wedded to the form or place of my Amendment; but I would ask that before the Bill becomes law the Government should give careful consideration to this matter and see whether it is not possible to cover it within the terms of this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Bishop of Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, I should like to say a word or two because I think this is a very important Amendment. It stresses the principle of the supervision of the home of a neglected child as well as the neglected child itself. The supervision of the deprived or abandoned child is permitted under the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 when a Fit Person Order has been made by the court. It may be that the noble and learned Viscount will say that because of that provision the principle underlying the Amendment is already covered. I would therefore ask whether His Majesty's Government will take into consideration before the next stage of this Bill the incorporation of a new clause specifying that in the case of the revocation of a Fit Person Order, a child either from a voluntary home or under the auspices of a local authority can be returned to its parents or guardian, irrespective of whether they have been in prison or not, with the supervision of the Probation Officer. If it is thought that there are other social workers such as health visitors who could do the supervision equally well, that would be a matter for local adjustment.

I would stress that at the present time there are two difficulties under the provisions of this Bill. One is that Section 61 of the Children and Young Persons Act is not sufficiently broad in its definition to include the category of case that the right reverend Prelate has in mind; and secondly, that under the provisions of this Bill there is not a specific clause allowing for the supervision of the home and, therefore, for the preventive side of the work and the re-education and rehabilitation of the parents who have allowed their children to come to this pass.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl who has just spoken has shown a complete knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act. With what he states about those provisions I find myself in agreement. But it seems to me that this Amendment raises a big question. The question, as I see it, is nothing other than this: Whether we should have some kind of care service to look after all these children. When one reads these cases in the newspapers, as one does nowadays all too often, one realises that there may be a case for that kind of service, though I, for my part, would always be very slow to agree to anybody interfering between a child and its own parents. While I agree that there are many cases in which we see unhappy results, whatever case there may be for the institution of a care service to look after these children, this Bill does not attempt to provide for it. I say that quite frankly. I do not believe it is possible at present to institute such a service. It may be that later on experience will show that it is desirable to consider the introduction of such a service, but this Bill does not attempt to do it.

How then, under this Bill, can we cope with the situation? Let me point out to the right reverend Prelate how we can deal with it. Suppose there is a case of neglect by parents and the parents, let us say, are sent to prison—which I hope is generally the appropriate method of treatment—or sometimes merely fined. What can be done? Well, once the child is received, under Clause 1, into the care of a local authority, they can then pass a resolution assuming parental rights under Clause2. When they have passed that resolution what they can do, among other things, is laid down in Clause 3 (3) which your Lordships will see on page 4 of the Bill. It says: A resolution under Section two of this Act shall not prevent the local authority from allowing the child to be, either for a fixed period or until the local authority otherwise determine, under the control of a parent, guardian, relative or friend in any case where it appears to the authority to be for the benefit of the child. So the machinery in this Bill is as follows. The local authority having received a child under Clause 1 and having passed the resolution under Clause 2, can then, under the provision to which I have just referred, send it back to the parents—on terms. Of course they may then see, and would normally see, that supervision is kept over the conditions of the home and so on; and if necessary they could remove the child from its own parent if they came to the conclusion that the parent was entirely unsuitable to have control of the child.

That is the machinery we have to carry out that purpose. It is as far as we can go and feel we ought to go in this Bill. Whether at some future time, in the light of experience, we decide to launch out on a much wider general care service for all children is a different proposition on which I cannot pronounce now—except that it is a matter in which obviously we must learn from experience. I suggest that the machinery we have here is the best we can do at present. In those circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment, although I fully appreciate the reasons which have influenced the right reverend Prelate in putting it down—reasons with which I have considerable sympathy.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

May I, in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, thank the noble and learned Viscount? It had never occurred to my amateur mind that the actual provisions to which he referred are there. They do seem to cover the situation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4) (a), after "time" to insert: not later than three months after the determination (whether by agreement between the authorities or in accordance with the following provisions of this subsection) of the ordinary residence of the child, or with the concurrence of the first-mentioned authority at any subsequent time. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The short object of the Amendment is to give the child whose place of residence may be the subject of dispute between local authorities the continuity of treatment and the settled background which the Curtis Committee recommended as being so important. By this Amendment, I suggest that it should not be at anytime but within three months that the local authority claiming the care of the child should have to make their application, unless (I put in this qualification) with the consent of the authority already having the care of the child, it was agreed between the two that in the interests of the child it could be done at a later date. I do not want to see a child permanently settled in the home of one local authority and then, when a move is not in the interests of the child, the other local authority demanding the right to have the child returned to their care. For those reasons, I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, after ("time") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord is anxious that two local authorities should not play," Pull devil, pull baker "over the body of an unfortunate child. We are all agreed that a child wants a settled background. Therefore, the noble Lord suggests a period of time and says that, if the local authority want the child, they must claim within that period of time, save with the consent of the other authority. I think it is a reasonable Amendment and an improvement to the Bill. I will accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved to add to subsection (4)

"Provided that—

1. (a) if the ordinary residence of a child has previously been determined, either directly in relation to the child or indirectly 539 by relation to his parent, by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education or the Minister of National Insurance, such determination shall apply for the purposes of this Act as if it were a determination of the Secretary of State;
2. (b) a child not resident in England or Scotland shall be deemed to be resident in the area of the local authority first receiving him into care;
3. (c) the place of residence of a child determined for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be his place of residence for the purposes of section forty-four of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913."

The noble Lord said: This question of determining where a child is ordinarily resident is one that has caused a great deal of difficulty to local authorities in the past. As laid down in this Bill, it is suggested that, if any question arises, it is to be determined by the Secretary of State. There are similar provisions in the National Health Service Act, the National Assistance Bill, and the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Therefore, it is possible that three different Ministers might determine the place of residence of any particular child. It is suggested that it might be convenient if it is laid down that, for the purpose of this Bill, the determination made under the other measures should be binding for every purpose. Paragraph (b) of this Amendment is necessary to secure the case of an authority responsible for a child which is not ordinarily resident either in England or in Scotland. With regard to paragraph (c), under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, the question of residence has been determined by justices. It does not seem to me altogether satisfactory, and it might be desirable to make it clear that, for the purposes of Section 44 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, the ordinary residence should be that determined under this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not making the slightest complaint because I know how difficult it is to deal with all these Amendments. I say this rather by way of personal excuse and explanation. It is difficult to deal with a mass of Amendments such as the noble Lord has moved when I see them only for the first time to-day. I know that the noble Lord appreciates my difficulty. I know that if it had been possible, he would have let me know in advance. Incidentally, it throws out all my own domestic system of numbering these Amendments. However, I will do the best I can. I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, in so far as I understand it, because if I may take Clause 1, it seems to me that there is no limit of time. Suppose that there had been a decision by one of these Ministers ten years ago. Circumstances have completely altered since then. Is it to be said that, in these completely altered circumstances, the Home Secretary is to be bound by that decision; and, if so, why? In addition, would the noble Lord mind telling me how the Home Office are to know? So far as I know, there is no register of all these determinations that have been made. How do the Home Office know whether a Minister in the past eighteen years or so has made some decision with regard to the residence of little Tommy Smith? How can they possibly find out? They cannot do it.

I have tried to meet the situation by means of the Amendment next on the Order Paper, because I want to get away from the artificial conception and down to the real question: "Where is the child really resident?" So far as I can see, that must be done by the Home Secretary, and only by the Home Secretary. I cannot accept paragraph (a) because that decision may have been given years ago, and it may no longer be relevant. Circumstances may have altered completely, and there is no possible means of the Home Secretary finding out what has in fact been decided. I think that paragraph (b) is also unnecessary because, unless the child is ordinarily resident in England or Scotland, no question can arise under Clause 1 (4). Paragraph (c) is unnecessary in view of subsection (2) (a) of Section 44 of the Mental Deficiency Act, which provides that if a person is received into an institution or home or any place that is determined to have been his place of residence, that determination shall be conclusive for the purpose of Section 44. For those reasons, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I apologise for not producing my Amendment earlier, but one does not always receive one's information in time. Perhaps this Amendment may be considered at a later stage. I believe that ordinarily a local authority would know if any determination had been made under the other Acts. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (5) In determining for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the ordinary residence of any child, any period during which he resided in any place as an inmate of a school or other institution, or in accordance with the requirements of a supervision order or probation order or the conditions of a recognisance, or while boarded out under this Act, the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, by a local authority or education authority shall be disregarded. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment repairs an omission in the clause as drafted. The new provision is in accord with proviso (a) to Section 70 (2) and with Section 90 (6) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as applied to the determination of residence of persons sent to an approved school.

This new provision for ignoring specified types of residence for the purpose of determining ordinary residence under Clause 1 (4) is not likely to apply to many children received direct into the care of a local authority under Clause 1 (1). It will be of importance, however, where children are received into care by the operation of Clause 29 (6) on the closing down of a voluntary home. Suppose that that were to happen and that the children were in the care of a local authority. I do not want to talk of what I call a purely artificial residence—namely, the fact that the voluntary association where the child used to be is within that particular area. One must find out where the child really belongs, altogether apart from the locality of the particular voluntary association where the child was living. That is the object of this Amendment, which I am sure will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I must say that I think this is a good Amendment. We on this side of the House welcome it as making it more clear that these artificial occurrences in the child's life will not be taken into consideration and that the Home Secretary will devote his attention to the child's real home area. I think it is quite sufficient to leave this matter in the hands of the Home Secretary, and we do not need any paraphrases on it such as those sought to be imposed by my noble friend behind me. In matters of this sort it is much better that the Home Office should be left to decide, on the best facts available to them, where the child is ordinarily and normally resident.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Assumption by local authority of parental rights.

(3) Where a notice has been served on a local authority under subsection (2) of this section, the authority may not later than fourteen days from the receipt by them of the notice complain to a juvenile court, or in Scotland the sheriff, having jurisdiction in the area of the authority, and in that event the resolution shall not lapse by reason of the service of the notice until the determination of the complaint, and the court or sheriff may, on the hearing of the complaint, order that the resolution shall not lapse by reason of the service of the notice:

Provided that the court or sheriff shall not so order unless satisfied that at the time when the resolution was passed the child had been and remained abandoned by the person who made the objection or that that person is unfit to have: the care of the child by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental deficiency or by reason of his habits or mode of life.

(4) Any notice under this section may be served by post.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to omit "at the time when." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, in a way, a drafting Amendment. It is quite right' that the court or sheriff should take into account whether the child had been abandoned or not at the time when the original resolution was passed, but should not take into account, except at the time when they are hearing the case, whether the person is fit or unfit to have charge of the child. This Amendment merely alters the position in which the words "at the time when the resolution was passed" fit into the clause. I believe that it may have been the original intention of the Government that they should fit in where I now suggest they should go and, for those reasons, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("that") to the last ("the").—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

As the noble Lord has indicated, this Amendment is put down by consent.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, after ("and") insert ("at the time when the resolution was passed").—(Lord Llewellin.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (4): so however that a notice served by a local authority under subsection (2) of this section shall not be duly served by post unless it is sent in a registered letter. The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, under this subsection notice of the resolution has to be served on the parents by post. It is a fairly formidable resolution. It is a notice to the parents that a resolution has been passed by the local authority taking the child out of the parents' care. I suggest that there should be no possible doubt that that notice is received by the parents. They have a right to appeal against the resolution to a court of summary jurisdiction, and it seems to me that the service of this important notice to any parent should be by registered post and not just by a letter being pushed into the letter box of a house to which perhaps the parents will not return for a fortnight or three weeks. At any rate, in the case of service by registered post the local authority will know that the notice has been duly and properly served on the parents, and that will be far better not only from the parents' point of view, but also from that of the local authority. That is the object of my Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 43, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord has clearly explained what his Amendment seeks to achieve. There is no need to add to it beyond saying that it is an improvement.

LORD LLBWELLIN

I am very much obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

3.15 p.m.

Clause 3:

Effect of assumption by local authority of parental rights:

(6) Any person who knowingly—

1. (a) assists or induces a child to whom this subsection applies to run away, or
2. (b) harbours or conceals a child to whom this subsection applies who has run away, or prevents him from returning to the place from which he has run away,

shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (6), after paragraph (b) to insert: or; (c) molests or persistently interferes with a child to whom this subsection applies or persistently attempts to induce him to run away; The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of this clause specifies two classes of persons who commit an offence under this particular clause. This Amendment and the next, which are more or less self-explanatory, suggest that there are two other classes of offenders, and two other kinds of circumstance in which an offence has been committed, which ought to be included in the provisions. I therefore beg to move the first of these two Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD MORRISON

I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I would point out to the noble Lord that under this Bill it is an offence already punishable by fine or imprisonment to assist or induce a child to run away, or to harbour him when he has run away. My noble friend's Amendment would add the offence of encouraging or permitting a child to remain with its parents when it ought to return to the local authority. It seems to me that the description of this offence is much too vague to be the subject of criminal proceedings, and I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

In those circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON had given Notice that he would move in subsection (5), after paragraph (b) to insert: or (c) encourages or permits a child to remain with a parent, guardian, relative or friend beyond the period fixed or determined by the local authority under subsection (3) of this section. The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment and I think it is really the Amendment which was answered by the noble Lord just now. If the Government do not feel inclined to accept it, I will not move it.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Duty of local authority to act as fit person under the Children and Young Persons Acts.

5.—(1) In, any case where, under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 a court has power to commit a person brought before the court to the care of a fit person, the court may commit him to the care of a local authority without the assent of the authority, and accordingly the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of Section seventy-six of that Act:—

"(I) The appropriate local authority shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the making of orders committing a child or young person to the care of a fit person, be deemed to be a fit person willing to undertake the care of him, and accordingly orders may be made committing children and young persons to their care, and they shall undertake the care of the children and young persons so committed:

Provided that where the court is a court of summary jurisdiction, the court shall, unless so to do would in the opinion of the court cause undue delay, permit the authority to make representations to the court as to the making of the order and shall, before making the order, consider any representations so made.

LORD MORRISON

After the coming into operation of the provisions of this Bill, all boarding out by local authorities will be done under the Bill, but it may be necessary for some time to come to disregard periods before the coming into operation of the provisions of the Bill during which a child was boarded out under the existing statutory powers. The first of the three Amendments I shall move in the name of the Lord Chancellor repairs an omission in the proviso to require any period during which a child was boarded out under the Poor Law Act of 1930 to be disregarded. The second of the three Amendments is consequential on the first, and the third Amendment is also consequential on the first. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 38, leave out the second ("the").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not quite certain that I follow the noble Lord. Did all his statement really arise from leaving out the word "the" in the sentence "they shall undertake the care of the children and young persons so committed"? I thought the first Amendment by the noble Lord was merely a drafting one and had nothing to do with the two subsequent Amendments. I will immediately relieve his mind, however, by saying that we have no objection to leaving out the word "the."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), in the proviso to the proposed new subsection (1) to omit "where the court is a court of summary jurisdiction." The noble Lord said: It seems to me to be right and proper that in any reasonable case where unnecessary delay will not be caused, any court (whether it be a court of summary jurisdiction, a court of Quarter Sessions, or a Court of Assize) dealing with a case of this sort should permit the authority to whom they are to commit the child to make representations before such an order is made. If it would cause such delay as to put the whole matter off—it might be until the next Assize—no doubt they would not do it. But I do not want it thought that by the terms of this Bill Parliament is trying to restrict this right to a court of summary jurisdiction—though I freely and frankly admit that in about 98 or 99 per cent. of the cases a court of summary jurisdiction will be dealing with matters of this sort. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 40, leave out from ("that") to the first ("the") in line 41.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord's explanation of his Amendment was so lucid that there remains nothing for me to say except that the Amendment is regarded by the Government as a very desirable one and is therefore accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON had given Notice to move, in the proviso to the proposed new subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Provided that" and to substitute: the Court shall:

1. (a) give an opportunity to the local authority to make representations as to the facilities which are available or can be provided for dealing adequately with the child or young person and shall, before making the order, consider any representation so made;
2. (b) consult the local authority before making a supervision order or a probation order in respect of a child or young person who is in, or whom the Court proposes to commit to, the care of the local authority."

The noble Lord said: In consequence of what has been so happily accepted by the Government, the first part of my Amendment becomes unnecessary and I propose, therefore, to move only the second part. Perhaps I may say just a few words upon that part.

The clause as now amended, I take it, gives every court the duty of receiving representations by the local authority. With regard to my Amendment, I would raise this point. It is considered that where a court commits a child to the care of a local authority that court should make a supervision order only in exceptional circumstances. If such an order were made, it seems to me that undesirable consequences might follow. The local authority would endeavour to board out the child and, the child being boarded out, the local authority would arrange for that child and the person receiving him to be visited periodically—and, I hope, adequately—by members of the authority's staff. If it is suggested that in these cases there should also be further visits from the probation officer, the unfortunate child and the acting parent might be overwhelmed with visits. There would, of course, be no objection raised where the court required a periodical report upon the progress of a person committed to the care of the local authority. In such circumstances reports could be submitted following visits of the children's officer. That is the reason for the Amendment which I now beg to move—namely, to substitute the words of my proviso (b).

Amendment, as amended, moved— Page 5, line 40, leave out from ("that") to end of line 45 and insert ("the Court shall consult the local authority before making a supervision order or a probation order in respect of a child or young person who is in, or whom the Court proposes to commit to, the care of the local authority."—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not prepared, in respect of this part of the Bill, to go further than we have already done. We have accepted an Amendment whereby it is provided that in any court—unless undue delay would be involved—the local authority may make representations as to the making of the order—that is the order herein referred to. I am not prepared to allow anyone to make representations with regard either to probation or supervision orders. From my own experience, I know that this is a very old bone of contention. What local authorities feel is that if a child is in their care—let us take the case for instance of a child who has committed some offence—that child should not be subject to a probation order. I am not prepared to assent to that as a proposition. The relevant facts will be present in the minds of a court in deciding whether they should make a probation order, and if in the light of all the circumstances the court think it is a proper case for a probation order, then a probation order it ought to be. It is, of course, always open to the probation officer to go before the court and ask them to revoke the order.

I have no doubt at all that if the probation officer and officials of the local authority discuss the matter together—as they will do—and if they come to the conclusion that revocation of such order would be in the best interests of the child, then the probation officer will be only too ready to ask the court to revoke the order. Exactly the same applies with regard to a supervision order, which is a type of order applied in the case of children who have not committed offences. There, also, I am not going in any way to limit the power of the court if they think it proper to make a supervision order. They have to consider the welfare of the child and all relevant circumstances in making the order. For those reasons I do not think it would be advantageous to accept this Amendment.

To show that I am not in any way casting aspersions upon the competence or the skill of officers of the local authorities, I would add this. Let us go go back for a moment to the probation order case. It is often found that with a really naughty child it is only through the specialised skill and knowledge of the probation officer that he will receive treatment which is calculated to be beneficial; and he will get it perhaps in a better way than he could from an officer of a local authority. Officers of local authorities, I am quite sure, are perfectly competent to deal with ordinary children, but they have no special skill or experience in dealing with what I call these naughty children. Without casting the slightest aspersion on the skill and competence of the officers of the local authority, I would point out that there are cases where it is most desirable that a child of that sort should be put under the care of a probation officer. Therefore, I can well understand that a court, notwithstanding the fact that a child is in the care of a local authority, might think fit to make such an order, and I would not interfere with the discretion of the court. For these reasons, as I have already said, we cannot go further than we have already gone.

LORD ADDINGTON

Perhaps in cases of the sort to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, there is sufficient ground and opportunity for consultation between the representatives of the court and the local authority. What one wants to avoid, if possible, is a multiplicity of arrangements for supervision and visits. However, I think these may well be matters of adjustment between the officer of the court and the officer of the local authority, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment specifies certain types of temporary residence which are to be disregarded in determining where a child is resident, for the purpose of deciding which local authority are to be required to undertake the care of the child. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 12, leave out ("or under") and insert ("the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("or education authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 19, after ("thereof") insert ("for the reference to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, there shall be substituted a reference to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Children becoming subject to Mental Deficiency or Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is a drafting one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 24, leave out ("said person or authority") and insert ("person or authority having control of the child").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Duty of parents to maintain contact with local authorities having their children in care.

10.—(1) The parent of a child who has not attained the age of sixteen and is in the care of a local authority under section one of this Act shall secure that the appropriate local authority are informed of the parent's address for the time being.

(4) In this section the expression "parent," in relation to an illegitimate child, includes a person who has been adjudged by an order of any court to be the putative father of the child, or in Scotland a person who has been found by any court to be the father of the child.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "parent" to insert "or guardian." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next are small Amendments. It seems desirable that parents of children should be required to maintain contact with the local authorities, and this Amendment extends that requirement to the guardians of children. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 1, after ("parent") insert ("or guardian").—(Lord Addington.)

LORD MORRISON

As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said a few moments ago, this Amendment unfortunately appeared so late on the Order Paper there has been no proper time to consider it, but if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw it for the time being I will give him an undertaking it will be considered before the next stage of the Bill.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This clause makes it an offence if a parent whose child is in the care of a local authority fails knowingly to keep the authority informed of his (the parent's) address. The purpose of the clause is to keep before parents their responsibility to take over the care of their children whenever they are in a position to do so.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Is the noble Lord sure he is dealing with the right Amendment? This is Clause 10.

LORD MORRISON

That is right. I was explaining what the clause meant. As an illegitimate child would not ordinarily be cared for by his putative father, subsection (4) is inappropriate to the purpose of the clause, and its retention would weaken the intention of the provision.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think we have any real objection to this Amendment, but it appeared rather late upon the Paper. If I may use a phrase which came from the Government Bench, we have not yet had sufficient time to consider it. With that proviso, we certainly accept it now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

May I ask a question? The last Amendment accepted, which was moved by the noble Lord opposite, takes out subsection (4). Who is the parent of an illegitimate child? Is it the father recognised by the court? Is that provision to be taken out altogether?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is to be taken out altogether so far as the father is concerned. I do not know about the mother. I will find out about the mother and let the noble Earl know.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [General duty of local authority]:

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD had given Notice that he would move to add to the clause as a new subsection: (3) Where a child is in the care of a local authority for a probationary period according to the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (3), it shall be the duty of that authority to appoint a visitor to care for the child in its home and to advise the parents in regard to home management. The right reverend Prelate said: This Amendment is consequential on my previous Amendment. Therefore I shall not move it.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mode of provision of accommodation and maintenance.

13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority shall discharge their duty to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in their care—

1. (a) by boarding him out on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the authority may, subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder, determine; or
2. (b) where it is not practicable or desirable for the time being to make arrangements for boarding-out, by maintaining the child in a home provided under this Part of this Act or by placing him in a voluntary home the managers of which are willing to receive him, on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the authority may subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder determine.

(2) Where a child in the care of a local authority is under three years of age, a local authority may provide accommodation and maintenance for him in premises in which accommodation is being provided under any Act of the present Session to terminate the existing poor law, being premises approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection which are and have since before the commencement of this Act been in use solely as a nursery.

(3) Where a child in the care of a local authority has attained the age of three, the local authority, if it is necessary so to do, may, for a period not exceeding fourteen days or, with the consent of the Secretary of State, for a longer period, provide accommodation and maintenance for the child in any premises in which accommodation is being provided under any such Act of the present Session as aforesaid.

(6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a local authority may, where it appears to them necessary so to do and for such periods as may be authorised by the Secretary of State, either generally or in a particular case, and subject to such conditions as may be so imposed by him, accommodate and maintain a child in their care in premises under the control of a local authority other than premises such as are mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out: on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the authority may subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder determine. The noble Lord said: The provision contained in the lines to be taken out is replaced by the insertion in the clause of a new subsection (7) which has the same effect, except for the omission of an inappropriate reference to "regulations" in line 26. The new subsection applies also to a child maintained under subsection (4) in a hostel not provided by the local authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 24, leave out from ("him") to end of line 27.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.36 p.m.

LORD DARWEN moved, in subsection (2), after "provide" to insert "temporary." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that no child, even under the age of three years, shall be kept in an institution with the aged and infirm except as a purely temporary measure. I think that the Curtis Report made it very clear that shortage of staff in these institutions is so great that even where infants are in separate quarters there is a tendency for them to be put under staff which is totally unsuitable for dealing with infants. There is even a tendency to put them under the care of inmates of the institution. Therefore we consider that this is an important Amendment, in that it will ensure, at least, that the stay in these institutions will be only temporary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, after ("provide") insert ("temporary").—(Lord Darwen.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I rise on this Amendment merely to ask whether in some cases these children might not be with their mothers who, through lack of other accommodation, have to go for a month or so into one of these public institutions, which we used to call "workhouses." I think it is far better that a child under three should be with its mother. The point I dislike in this clause is the provision relating to children over three years old. Before the Government reply, I should like to ask whether this Amendment might not have the result of compulsorily taking a child away from its mother who is only temporarily in one of these homes.

LORD MORRISON

I think it may be said, first of all, that the policy certainly will be to secure the discontinuance of these nurseries as soon as possible, on the principle that local authority children's homes should be entirely detached from adult institutions. It occurs to me that perhaps my noble friend who moved this Amendment misapprehends the provisions of the subsection. Subsection (2) enables local authorities to accommodate children under the age of three in nurseries approved by the Secretary of State which are associated with premises provided by a local authority for the accommodation of adults and which are, and have been, in use solely as nurseries since before the commencement: of the Act. The nurseries in question, of course, are those which are at present commonly provided by local authorities in adult institutions under the Poor Law. It is undesirable that children of any age should be accommodated in adult institutions, but there is less objection to the accommodation of young children in nurseries forming, as they usually do, separate units in adult institutions. Moreover, as the noble Lord has just said, there may be special cases in which the mother is in an institution.

In existing circumstances it is necessary to provide for the continued use, for the time being, of such nurseries for children under the age of three, where the premises are approved by the Secretary of State. The considerations under subsection (3), where children over the age of three are accommodated in adult institutions, without such special provision as is to be found in the nurseries for children under the age of three, are entirely different. It is for this reason that subsection (3) imposes a limit of stay of fourteen days, except with the consent of the Secretary of State. I hope after that explanation by noble friend will not desire to press his Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

May I say one word on that matter? It is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that there may be exceptional circumstances. I certainly would not wish to press any Amendment to separate a mother from her child, or anything of the kind. I would, however, like to see the Government accept some kind of Amendment to ensure that children in these exceptional circumstances are not submitted to the Poor Law.

LORD MORRISON

May I have the leave of the House to interpose a further word? I ought to have explained before that the Amendment could not have the effect of taking a child away from its mother. This clause deals only with children in the care of a local authority—that is to say, separated from their parents. Therefore, that case would not apply.

LORD DARWEN

I thank the noble Lord for his reply and his assurances. His statement of the general policy of the Government is excellent, but I still feel there is a little danger in the clause as it stands. However, in view of the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that the Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be in all cases where he has given a consent under this subsection by notice in writing inform the Advisory Council on Child Care to be constituted under this Act of the name of the child and of the address of the premises in which he is accommodated and of the circumstances in which such consent was given. The noble Earl said: We now come to the children who are over three years of age. Your Lordships will remember that the Curtis Report said that children over three should not remain in public assistance institutions even for a single day. In the present state of accommodation, and with the present chances of providing more accommodation for children, that is a Utopian recommendation.

I think the draftsmen of the Bill are perfectly right in permitting residence in a public institution for up to fourteen days. I am quite ready to be told that it will be necessary, in a good many cases, for the Secretary of State to permit children to be kept in such institutions for more than fourteen days. I suggest that the position needs to be watched carefully. It has occurred to me that it would be advisable, in view of the strong terms in which the Curtis Report speaks of such accommodation, that the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to supply to his Advisory Council regular information about such permissions. The object of this proviso is that there shall be no danger of such permits becoming habitual and customary. If I can be assured by the Government that steps will be taken to ensure that the granting of such permits will not become habitual, and that the whole matter will be continuously watched, I shall be indifferent to the actual terms. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

LORD MORRISON

Without hesitation I can assure the noble Earl that the Government have every sympathy with his Amendment, although, for reasons which I will give briefly, they are unable to accept it. They agree with the noble Earl that the position will need careful watching. All proposals to keep children over the age of three in adult institutions for more than fourteen days will be closely scrutinised, and wherever this is feasible the policy will be to insist on the children being accommodated in other ways. The Advisory Council will, no doubt, be interested in the principles on which this power of the Secretary of State is exercised, and any necessary information will be supplied to them. The main reason why the Government are unable to accept this Amendment is its implication that the Secretary of State will be accountable for his actions to the Advisory Council. That seems to me rather like putting the cart before the horse, and is clearly wrong. If the Secretary of State's actions have to be criticised, the criticism should come from Parliament. In view of that explanation, and the assurance, which I repeat, that the Government have every sympathy with the noble Earl's point of view, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

In view of the assurances of the noble Lord, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("do") to ("accommodate") in line 13.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The proviso which it is proposed to insert by this Amendment has the same effect as the words left out in lines 10–13, apart from the fact that there is no reference to "such periods." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 16, at end insert: "Provided that a local authority shall only exercise their powers under this subsection with the authorisation of the Secretary of State given either generally or as respects particular premises, and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him."—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 16, at end insert: (7) Where under this section a local authority provide for a child by maintaining him in a home or hostel not provided by the authority, the terms, whether as to payment by the authority or other matters, upon which the child is so maintained shall be such as, subject to the provisions of this Act, may be agreed between the authority and the persons providing the home or hostel."—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

3.48 p.m.

Clause 14:

Regulations as to Boarding-out.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, regulations under this section may provide—

(c) for securing that where possible the person with whom any child is to be boarded out is either of the same religious persuasion as the child or gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion;

The EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert: (d) for securing that where practicable the local authority shall, before any child is boarded out with a person not of the same religious persuasion, consult with the appropriate authority of the child's religious persuasion. The noble Earl said: I now come to a point which, I suggest, is of great importance. I recognise fully and gratefully that the intention of the Bill is that, whatever else a child is deprived of, it shall not be deprived of its religion. It is recognised in an earlier clause of the Bill that nothing shall authorise the upbringing of a child in a religion other than that in which it would have been brought up had it not been for a resolution being passed. Whilst I recognise that that is the intention of the Bill, I am concerned with how that intention is to be carried into effect. I put down this Amendment, which I hope will be regarded as helpful, and therefore acceptable, in order that the intention of the Bill shall, in fact, be carried into effect when it comes to the difficult matter of boarding out.

Let me remind your Lordships that there was an important reservation to the Curtis Report on this subject. That reservation suggested that under no circumstances should a child be boarded out with foster-parents who were not of the child's own religion. That, of course, appeals to me in many ways as a sound and wise reservation, and I have the greatest respect for the people who signed it. I am not going anything like so far as that, because I am advised on all hands that it is not practicable. It will not always be possible to find foster-parents of the same religion as the deprived child to be boarded out. Although there is, of course, the alternative solution of sending the child to a voluntary home maintained by the child's own co-religionists, I recognise that there are many cases in which boarding out will appear to the local authorities as a better solution. I am asking that before a child is boarded out with foster-parents of a different religion, there shall be consultation with the appropriate religious authorities of the child's religion. It is not an uncommon thing for foster-parents, receiving a child of a religion not their own, to sign an undertaking that the child will be brought up in a particular faith. The Bill requires, or provides that it will be required by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, that wherever possible such undertakings shall be exacted from the foster-parents.

So far I think we are on common ground. But while it may seem a simple matter for a would-be foster-parent to sign a document, we must all recognise that an exceedingly difficult position will be created. The foster-parents will need every possible assistance from the clergy of the child's own religion if their undertaking is to be fulfilled. In this connection, consultation before boarding out takes place will be of the greatest value, and I am extremely glad that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield, whom I have consulted on the matter, is of the same mind. In the case of the communion of which I have the privilege to be a member—and I think also in the case of the Roman Catholic Church—it is the usual practice for the Bishop of a diocese to delegate to some cleric responsibility for rescue work in that diocese. That cleric is then responsible for all deprived children of his particular faith, and he will always be available for consultation on the expedient of boarding out when the foster-parent is of another religion. I can see that his advice will be valuable. Will he, for example, be able to point out in a proposed fostering that a foster-parent lives fairly close to the church where the child will have to go, that the priest will be able to visit, that there are co-religionists in the neighbourhood who will take an interest in the child and help in the work of instructing him in his religion?

In another case he may suggest that the fostering will not work, because the child is a long way from all these advantages, or because there is no special agreement school to which the child can be sent. In either case, his advice will be exceedingly valuable and useful. I have inserted the words "where practicable" into my Amendment. I recognise that there may be instances where the appropriate religious authority cannot be found, where the child perhaps belongs to a denomination very slightly represented in this country; and in that case consultation would be impracticable. I hope the Government will agree that the insertion of the words,"where practicable," reasonably meet the objection which I anticipate. I hope that my very moderate intentions will be recognised by noble Lords. I have been asked in some quarters to press for a very much more drastic Amendment than this very simple matter of consultation for which I and the right reverend Prelate are asking in this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I would like to say a word in support of the noble Earl who has just spoken. This Amendment, if carried, would meet a certain uneasiness with regard to this measure, as it now stands, among those who represent communities. As the Bill stands, an authority dealing rather perfunctorily with the matter might, without a very prolonged search into the matter, send a child to a home not of that child's religious persuasion. What we ask for is consultation before that decision is taken. As the Bill stands, there is neither information nor consultation, and it ought to be possible to supply both. I realise that there may be some difficulty in fixing the appropriate authority, but in my own communion there is no difficulty about that. One gathers from what the noble Earl has just said that the matter is simple so far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, and also with the Free Churches.

LORD MORRISON

This is a very difficult question, and the Government have given considerable attention to it. May I say at once that in the opinion of the Government a child must not be deprived of its religion? That is important, and we accept that broad principle. Where the difficulty begins, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is in the use of the words "where practicable." They may be taken to represent a difficulty of identifying locally the "appropriate authority" (as the right reverend Prelate has just indicated), particularly of some of the smaller denominations. I do not think it would be necessary in the case of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, but when we come to the smaller religious denominations, many of whom hold their religious convictions as fiercely and intensely as do the larger bodies, the difficulties begin to get very heavy indeed, especially where there is no reliable information as to the religious persuasion of the child.

Presumably the word "consult," which appears in the noble Earl's Amendment, is intended to mean that a local authority should receive and consider representations made to it. To impose a statutory requirement such as is suggested in the Amendment would put an awkward burden on local authorities who would, on occasion, have either to reject the Church authorities' representations or to lose foster homes which on general grounds were good homes. Further, it would in all likelihood impose a handicap on the development of the arrangements for boarding children out, and might discourage people from offering foster homes. It is one thing for a local authority to elect to consult informally on occasions as a matter of good will and good sense, but it is a very different thing to put them under a statutory obligation to consult local Church authorities whose altitude might possibly vary from place to place and might sometimes be meticulous rather than helpful.

The suggested Amendment, it seems to me, is essentially one for informal arrangements being made locally between the Church authorities and the local authorities. Boarding out as a form of care is to be developed under this Bill, and we expect and hope that the Churches will play an important part in assisting local authorities to find suitable foster homes. Officers and members of children's committees will be encouraged to approach Church authorities for assistance. I am quite certain that the relations between the two authorities should be on a basis of informal co-operation locally in achieving the common aim, rather than that a local authority should be regulated by statutory provisions. Wherever it is possible for a child to be boarded out with a person of the same religious persuasion as that of the child, that would be the policy we should adopt. Further than that I cannot go.

4.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I very much hope that the Government have not said their last word on this point. It is quite possible in certain cases that the religious body concerned may well be able to inform a local authority that such and such a home is available and therefore save a child from going to a home net: of the same religious persuasion. The noble Lord did not take that into consideration. He suggested that the matter may be dealt with informally. Well, it may be dealt with informally, but there is no necessity that it should be, and my experience of some local authorities is that what the Amendment asks may never take place. It is very desirable that some such Amendment should be accepted. May I draw an analogy from the Education Act? In that Act it is made perfectly clear that the wishes of the parent shall be taken regarding the religious teaching that should be given. If a child is assigned to a Church of England or a. Roman Catholic home, the matter is easy enough to follow. But even if it is assigned to some other community, I do not think it should be too difficult to find some representative who could give an indication as to a suitable foster home. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the matter.

LORD O'HAGAN

I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said. This is a matter of real and deep importance, and even though the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, indicates the sympathy of the Government, I feel and I am sure a great many of your Lordships will feel also that one cannot rest content with the assurances given. I earnestly hope that further consideration will be given to the matter so that the danger to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, alluded, of local authorities paying no attention to this matter, shall not arise.

LORD RUSHCLIFFE

I should like to support what has been said. The explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is wholly unconvincing. I see no reason at all why this Amendment should not be accepted. Obviously some local authorities will play the game; on the other hand it is certain that some will not. I think those who are sponsoring this Amendment should insist that local authorities should be put under a statutory obligation to do what the Amendment asks to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that sometimes the numbers of a religious community would be small, and that it would not be easy to find the appropriate authority. But the Amendment provides for that. It says "where practicable." If it is not practicable it cannot be done. I hope the noble Lord will think again and that if necessary the noble Earl who moved the Amendment will carry the matter to a Division. Personally I feel very strongly about it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We have already felt and thought very strongly about this matter, and I really do not think it practicable to go further than we have done. I am one of those—we all are—who regard religion as of vital importance to a child, and I would go to any length to see that a child was brought up in the religion of its parents. Therefore, we have provided in Clause 14 that we must have regulations providing: for securing that where possible the person with whom any child is to be boarded out is either of the same religious persuasion as the child or gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion. So far so good. I do not think anybody will quarrel with that. But this Amendment goes further; it seeks to put upon us a statutory obligation—because that is what it comes to. And it can be argued that unless this statutory obligation is fulfilled, all the arrangements the authorities make may be vitiated.

What is it that they have to do? It is all very well for noble Lords to talk—I say it with great respect—and for the Curtis Report to talk about "three religions"—Church of England, Roman Catholic, and then to lump all the others together as a kind of "also ran" which they call "Free Churches." In that third category there are a vast number of separate religions whose antagonism towards each other is just as acute as amongst the others, and who would regard their children, if assigned to another member of that group, as standing in grave spiritual peril. Yet, as a condition of our obligation, we are asked by Statute to consult: with what is described as "the appropriate authority" of the child's religious persuasion. I once nursed a Constituency (I did not fight it) at Cardiff. I believe that at the Cardiff docks there are representatives of every known religion in the world. Heaven help the local authorities of Cardiff if they had to consult the appropriate authority on each child's religious persuasion! The men there were black, brown, yellow, every sort of colour; and each religion had its tabernacle or whatever you call the sort of building they have. It would be quite impossible to impose this sort of statutory obligation upon those local authorities.

I am perfectly willing to say that, as a matter of good sense, I entirely agree that a local authority ought to do this. It ought to be done in every case where it can be done. It is one thing to say: "As a matter of good sense and in acordance with the desire of the Home Office, that is what a local authority ought to do," but it is quite a different proposition to impose this as a statutory obligation, and afterwards, when provisions have been made for the child's welfare and so on, to argue that all this was invalid because the wrong authority were consulted. We have given this point careful consideration. It is not that we differ in any way from the motive which moved the noble Earl to produce this Amendment but, for the purely practical reasons which I have given, we do not think it practicable to impose upon local authorities a statutory obligation to do this as an essential for providing for the child. Therefore, although we have given this matter careful consideration, I am sorry to say that we must stand by our decision.

4.11 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

I have listened with great disappointment to the speech which has just been made by the noble and learned Viscount. I had hoped very much that he would tell us that the Government would give the matter further consideration to see whether they could not produce some Amendment which would be acceptable to those who have moved the present Amendment, with perhaps some changes which would meet the difficulties which have been mentioned. I must confess that I am not convinced by the arguments which have been adduced about the difficulties in this case. I do not think that there would be this difficulty. In many ways, I have had a good deal to do with the various Churches which are grouped under the Free Churches, and I have not found among them the kind of controversy and difficulty which the noble Lord assumed would be present, although I quite appreciate the difficulties which may arise by reason of this regulation unless there is in it some such phrase as "if practicable." I would like the Government to see if they cannot find some other phrase which may meet their difficulties and, at the same time, meet the position of those who have already spoken in favour of this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As I understand it, children have been boarded out as children and young persons for a considerable number of years. Although I much appreciate the views prompting those who move this Amendment, I believe that we are actually reincorporating in this Bill the same words that were in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Under the boarding out provisions of that Act of a previous Government, those children have in the interval been boarded out in considerable numbers. On the whole they have been boarded out in homes where the faith was the same as that held in the places where the children had hitherto been brought up. So far as my information goes, there have been no complaints that local authorities have not boarded out the children well under those old provisions of the Act of 1933. If we had not had that experience behind us, there might have been a lot to be said for putting in the additional words proposed. As, however, this whole procedure has been working—and, if I may say so, working without complaint from the Churches—for all that time since 1933, perhaps it would be just as well not to impose these extra burdens which might cause some complication. It might be better in boarding out cases to go on in the same way as we have been going quite happily for the last fifteen years or so.

In view of that reason, and of the difficulty of finding words appropriate to every single religious organisation—there may be a religious organisation in this country with only fifty or sixty people belonging to it, but it might have one of these children—I suggest that we should leave the words in the Bill as drafted, bearing in mind that since 1933 we have been working under similar words. I do not think we have had a substantial complaint from any religious denomination that the local authorities have not tried in every case to implement the spirit behind the words and board children out in suitable homes of their own religious persuasion. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend that we may, in view of the past fifteen years' experience, leave those words as they are and not attempt to add others to them.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I regret the last speech made by the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition. If the Government refuse to accept the Amendment, we must fall back on something else. I wonder whether the Government could not at least give us an undertaking that they will address a circular or a letter to the local authorities suggesting the course put down in the Amendment. That would give us some satisfaction. The noble and learned Viscount did not convince me at all when he said that all the arrangements might be vitiated. I think he was putting the case rather high when he spoke of the Free Churches. I cannot believe that his arguments were well founded. I hope the Government will give us an undertaking in this matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Home Secretary so I do not know what he thinks about it. When I get the opportunity, I am quite ready to consult the Home Secretary about this matter, to see if he will authorise me to give an answer for which I have no authorisation at the moment. I am entirely in favour of the principles of this Amendment so long as this requirement is not imposed as a matter of Statute. I think there is a vital distinction. If you have a statutory duty imposed upon you which it can be said you have not carried out, it may be argued that because in everything you have done you have neglected to take that fundamental step, everything is invalid; whereas, if the duty is not a statutory duty but is a duty of common sense and good faith, it cannot be argued that, because you have neglected that duty, all you have done is invalid. There is a vital distinction between the two.

So far as the latter situation is concerned, I am willing to take this matter into consideration. I am afraid that I cannot give an answer here and now, but I will certainly see if I cannot give some assurance to the noble Earl on the lines I have indicated. It is not that I differ at all from the principles which have motivated the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate in moving this Amendment. It is that I am impressed very much with the practical difficulties connected with it and with the legal consequences that might follow if it were argued that we had neglected to take these steps.

4.19 p.m.

LORD AMWELL

Throughout this debate, I have been trying to restrain myself, because I did not think it was appropriate for a member of your Lordships' House who has not yet made his maiden speech to intervene in this particular way without preparation. However, I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I say that I cannot let this debate pass without a word or two—and it will be only a word or two. It seems to me that in all discussions of this kind there is a lack of realism. I am old enough to remember the days of Cooper-Temple and Athelston Riley, and those well versed in educational matters, who spent their time, as many have done since, jumping from one side and the other at the poor little devil of a child who was supposed to have "religious persuasions." That phrase has been used a number of times this afternoon—the "religious persuasions" of a child of three who is being looked after, or who is to be looked after, by public authorities because the parents, whose religion is of such importance, are so lacking in spiritual power and recognition of responsibility that they cannot be left even to train their child in the ordinary ways of life, let alone in respect to religion!

This issue is certainly one of morality. I am not against the child of a convinced Christian of any denomination having the training that is respected by the parents, and I believe in the necessity for spiritual training. I am by no means a materialist, but we must recognise the fact that the majority of people in this country are altogether indifferent to religion. I think that is a perfectly correct statement, and also that there are large numbers of other people who are not within the categories which have been referred to by the right reverend Prelate—the Church of England, the Church of Rome, and the Nonconformists. It is known that there are over a million Spiritualists in this country, there are hundreds of thousands of Christian Scientists, there are Secularists and all sorts of people, the children of whom will, in particular circumstances, come under the consideration of public authorities in respect of this measure.

We must be practical in these days, in the sense that the Lord Chancellor has put the case before the House this afternoon. So far as possible, let the children have the religious education of their parents; but let us be reasonable and realistic about the whole thing. What the child wants first and foremost is a good home and good moral training. I am philosopher enough to believe that it is impossible ultimately to justify morality without some kind of religion, but not when you are talking about children of three, four or five. That is a philosophical view which has nothing to do with the problem here. The essential thing is a good home, a good moral home and environment. I agree with the Lord Chancellor—even with the words of the reservation—that a statutory obligation on local authorities to inquire into what are the precise religious ideas of parents is altogether unreasonable and out of the question.

Members of the Church of England have all sorts of variations, apart from theological tenets as such. That is equally true of the Church of Rome, and I am perfectly sure that it is true of other religions. There are literally thousands of religions, or aspects of religion, which are accepted by people who care about the subject. But, as I have said, unfortunately a vast number of people—I think the majority—do not care about religion at all. They do not lead a religious life. Even if they lead a decent and ordinary life, they do not lead a religious life as it would be accepted in the tenets of a Church. I think we ought now to get away from that type of argument in regard to religion and children. Let us do the best we can for the child and give it the chance of a good home. Then, ultimately, when the time comes for the child to exercise, with some sense of responsibility, its judgment, and all those qualities that we call spiritual, it should have the opportunity of judging for itself issues of this character.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

It falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken on a maiden speech of remarkable power and sincerity—qualities which this House will be very ready to recognise and appreciate. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will intervene frequently in our debates.

We have had a debate of considerable length, a fact which marks the importance which this House—if not the country in general—attaches to the subject that I have raised. I have found myself out of sympathy with the front Bench opposite and my own front Bench. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, when he informs us that these arrangements have always worked quite smoothly and with complete satisfaction. I am afraid that that has not always been the case. Rather reluctantly I have made up my mind, if the right reverend Prelate agrees with me, to withdraw the Amendment, on the assurance given by the learned and noble Viscount that he will consult with his right honourable friend regarding the issue of recommendations to local authorities on this subject. While he is engaged on this consultation, perhaps he will also consider whether, after the child has been boarded out, there could not be imposed on the local authorities the statutory duty to inform the appropriate person. After all, when the authorities concerned know where the child is, they have a chance at least of doing what they sincerely want to do, and that is to co-operate with the Government and help them to carry out the intentions of the Bill. If the right reverend Prelate will agree, I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD RUSHCLIFFE

May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether we shall see this circular before the Report stage? We could then consider whether or not it was satisfactory. If it were not, we could raise the whole matter again on Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It could not possibly be a circular unless and until this Bill is passed. All I can say is that I might get a statement from the Home Secretary indicating his attitude with regard to the ultimate promulgation of such a circular. Until then there can be no question of it at all.

LORD RUSHCLIFFE

So far as I am concerned, that will be satisfactory. If we may have an indication of what the circular may contain, the matter can be raised again on Report stage.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I am quite willing to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment, although I do so with great reluctance. I am entirely unconvinced about this argument of the impracticability of what has been suggested. I have had many meetings with local authorities and they have been very friendly. If this can be done in a friendly way it cannot be so very difficult. If consultations beforehand are possible, I think they should be held. I also hope that it may be possible to give to a local authority some kind of instruction embodying the principle of this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Clause 15:

Duty of local authorities to provide homes.

(2) The homes provided under this section by a local authority shall include at least one home for the temporary reception of children, with, in particular, the necessary facilities for observation of their physical and mental condition.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the exercise by local authorities of their functions under this section and the conduct of homes provided thereunder and for securing the welfare of the children in tile homes, and regulations under this subsection may in particular— (b) impose requirements as to the facilities which are to be given for the children to receive instruction in the religious persuasion to which they belong; (c) require the approval of the Secretary of State to the construction of buildings with a view to the use thereof for the purposes of homes, to the making of additions, diminutions or alterations to or of, or to or of the grounds of, buildings used for the said purposes or to the putting of a building, or of any land, into use for the said purposes; (d)require the approval of the Secretary of State to the appointment of the person in charge of a home, except in the cases (if any) in which the regulations dispense with his approval by reason that the person to be appointed possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations; and may contain different provisions for different classes of cases and as respects different classes of homes.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), to delete from the beginning of the subsection down to and including "home," and insert: (2) The accommodation provided under the last foregoing subsection by a local authority shall include separate accommodation. The noble Lord said: I am at one with everyone else in wishing to have these children, in the reception stage, housed in separate accommodation. But there are some quite small authorities in whose areas it would be wrong, in my submission, to insist upon having a separate home. In such places there is a very small intake, fortunately, of these children; and to maintain a separate home with a matron, and perhaps a full staff, when it is possible to have separate accommodation in another home for the reception of these children, would be wrong. To say that in all cases a home must be kept open and waiting for children would, it seems to me, be placing an undue burden on those concerned, quite apart from the fact that to have such a place would be unnecessary. I suggest that in many instances it will completely meet the need if there is a separate wing available in an existing home. For these reasons I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 2, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

It may save the time of the Committee if I say at once that we propose to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved to add to subsection (2)," and for training them in habits of hygiene before they are boarded out." The right reverend Prelate said: This is not much more that a drafting Amendment. I want to make it perfectly clear that these temporary homes are not just for dealing with children who need psychological examination or whose health is poor; they are temporary homes in which a child is brought to the state where it can be boarded out with a family. In other words, I want to make it plain that in these establishments the children will be trained in the elementary habits of hygiene, and so on. It is unfortunately true that a good many of these children are taken to these homes knowing little about normal habits of life. It is important that there should be provision to train them to a point at which they may be taken into a house with a family, and join normally and happily in family life.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)

LORD MORRISON

I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary and that its insertion in the Bill would add nothing to what is already there. To train childen in the habits of hygiene is not something which can be accomplished merely by a course of instruction extending over a week or two. You could not put children through such a course and then say that they are trained. It is a matter that will be with them during the whole of their child life; it is a matter of continuous training. As I say, I am advised that to insert the words proposed would not add anything to the Bill, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I do not wish to press this, but I should like to say that what I have in mind is not covered by the word "observation." I quite agree that in some cases it is a long job to give these children the right sort of training. Many of them are so untaught in the simple things of life that they need training in such things before they are in a state to be received into a family. Something much more practical than mere observation is required.

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to look at the words again, and I will advise him whether it is thought that there is anything which could usefully be done in this connection.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMULREE moved to add to subsection (2): and such centres shall be available for the temporary reception of children under the care of the local authority or under that of a voluntary organisation. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend to the children under the care of the voluntary organisations, or who are going to voluntary organisations, the same advantages as will be enjoyed by children who are to be boarded out by local authorities. One of the important features of this Bill is that children boarded out by local authorities will first be taken to a centre where they can be observed by trained people, who will find out precisely what kind of future is best suited for them—whether they should be boarded out or whether they should go to this home or to that home. What I want to ensure is that children under the care of voluntary organisations will have the same right or privilege of going to the centre if the voluntary authorities or parents so desire. I do not want to compel any child to go. I simply want to make it possible for these children to secure these advantages. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Amulree.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Before the noble Lord replies for the Government I would like to say a few words to stress the great importance of this Amendment. Your Lordships will appreciate that the provision of a home such as is described in subsection (2) of this clause, provided that it is correctly staffed, is the key to the whole operation of this Bill. Later we discuss the staffing of such a home. It is, I think, beyond the intention of the Bill that there should be a group of children unable to take advantage of, the technical skill of the staff of any such home. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that those children who are recommended by one body or another to receive the care of a voluntary organisation will first have the facility of going to a reception centre in order that the characteristics of the child can there be ascertained. The characteristics of the child having been ascertained, then the body responsible for its future maintenance will be better equipped to know whether the home suggested is the right home for that particular individual. So far as I can see from the provisions of the Bill, there is not a statutory obligation for all children to go through reception centres. I think it would be of the greatest value if some provision to that effect could be incorporated.

LORD DARWEN

I would like to support this Amendment. I feel that it is an exceedingly important one. I understand that in the case of children sent to approved schools the classifying centres have been very successful. I hope that the same principle may be adopted here with regard to all children. This Amendment goes some way, at any rate, towards achieving that end, and I hope that it will be accepted.

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords who have just spoken, but I think they have not fully appreciated that it is the purpose of the Government, and the purpose of everyone in the country, to see that the children's officers who will be appointed under this Bill will be people of a very high standard, equal to a medical officer of health, or even a borough engineer. Therefore, I feel sure that everything possible that can be done will be done to see that the children have an opportunity of going to a place where there is proper instruction. The policy of the Government, as implemented in the Bill, is to enable the case of children in the public care or its voluntary equivalent to be undertaken in two separate and distinct ways: on the one hand, by local authorities, and on the other, by voluntary organisations. The voluntary organisations must carry their own responsibilities and the policy will be to encourage the larger organisations to provide temporary reception accommodation so that the special needs of children may be determined. I realise, of course, that this may not be satisfactory in the case of very small organisations many of which do good work in their own way. But there is no such thing as perfection in this world. I am afraid I cannot go any further to meet the noble Lord.

LORD AMULREE

I must say I do not feel that reply is at all satisfactory. It is quite simple to talk about major organisations being able to set up these centres, but it will be extremely difficult even for local authorities to find the right type of staff to fill them. It may even be necessary for one or more local authorities to combine to run such a service. I do not think that voluntary organisations will be able to supply their own centres entirely. If the children's officer were the only person responsible, it would not be necessary to allow such responsibility to the centres of the local authority. If the help of the children's officer is sufficient for children going to voluntary centres, I cannot see why it is not sufficient also for children going to local authorities. I hope the noble Lord will be able to reconsider what I have just said and give me some sort of hope drat it may be possible for the children in voluntary centres to be brought into this service. They should have the same opportunity of trained and careful diagnosis.

LORD MORRISON

I am perfectly prepared to consider, with those concerned, whether anything can be done to meet the noble Lord's point of view, provided it is clear that I am not committing myself. I will let the noble Lord know before Report stage whether I have had any success in my efforts.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I would just add to what has been said by the noble Lord who has kindly undertaken to look into the matter, that there are today very few qualified staff to man such centres. I am referring particularly to psychiatric workers, who are the key social workers in arranging the best future for deprived children. If this Amendment is not accepted and no more satisfactory undertaking is given as to the diagnosis and ascertaining of the categories of children going to voluntary organisations, it will mean that we are creating a privileged class of deprived children coming under the auspices of the local authorities. That will not be very conducive to voluntary organisations to raise voluntary funds with which to carry on their work and assist the intentions of this Bill.

LORD AMULREE

In view of the kind promise of the noble Lord to see what can be done between now and the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.44 p.m.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in subsection (4) (b), after "instruction" to insert "and where practicable be brought up." The noble Earl said: If your Lordships will refer back for a moment to Clause 14, page 10, line 35, you will see that the foster-parent is to be asked where possible to give an undertaking that the child "will be brought up in" a particular religious persuasion. When we come to Clause 15, which is concerned not with foster-parents but with local authorities, we find different wording. It imposes requirements as to the facilities which are to be given for the children to receive instruction in the religious persuasion to which they belong. I am not quite clear whether that difference in wording is intentional or not.

Of course, I realise the great value of giving religious instruction, and that duty is to be imposed on local authorities in their homes. At the same time, I should prefer that the words "be brought up in" should also be inserted, because they are wider. That would cover matters like taking children to Church, where that is possible, and generally treating their religion not merely as one more subject that has to be learned, like mathematics, but as being a life which the children should live. I cannot conceive a more harmless Amendment than that which I am moving now, and I hope that I shall not find the Government too obdurate on this matter. If I am again brought up against the very obscure religions in Cardiff docks, I would point out that I have tried to meet that argument by the words "where practicable." I beg to move.

Amendment moved. Page 11, line 55, after ("instruction") insert ("and where practicable be brought up").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a point which arises several times in the course of the Bill and it is convenient to deal with it here. It is a fact that the boarding out rules—I have in front of me a copy of the Children and Young Persons Act Rules (Scotland); they are similar to those in England—do use the words "brought up," but they do not use the word "instruction." What we are now asked to do is to include the words "brought up" where we already have the word "instruction." I say at once that I am prepared to consider this matter. I am not going, and I do not wish to be understood, to give any sort of undertaking, but I am prepared to consider this point between now and Report stage. I am frankly "up against it" in deciding what is involved in the words "brought up" when they are used in addition to the word "instruction." If it is merely something like taking children to church, that seems to me to be included in the word "instruction." I should have thought it difficult to instruct a child in a religion unless it was taken to the church where that religion was practised and taught.

I am more concerned about the various dietary rules which are imposed by various religions. I go to Cardiff Docks again, and I see the table for three-year-olds composed of all sorts of religions. There are almost certain to be some Hindus, who cannot drink their broth if it is made with beef. There will be some Jewish children, who must not drink the broth unless it is made from animals killed according to Jewish ritual. And there may be Roman Catholic children, who, unless there is a dispensation, would be expected not to eat meat at all on Friday. If you carry this idea far enough, the words "brought up" seem to me to offer a rather dangerous vista of possibilities of that sort. If they mean merely taking the children to church, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that that ought to be involved also in the word "instruction." I will look into the matter and consider what is the effect of using the words "brought up"; not of using the words "brought up" simplicita, as is done in the rules. The rules say this: Before boarding out a child with a foster-parent, the local authority shall satisfy themselves that the foster-parent is a suitable foster-parent for that child"— and then we get the words— and shall, if possible, select a person who is of the same religious persuasion as the child or who gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in accordance with that religious persuasion. That is all right if there is not the word "instruction" first of all. But if you have "instruction," and then add "brought up" to it, you are piling Pelion on Ossa, and I am not certain what Ossa involves. So long as it is understood that I am not giving an undertaking that I shall be able to do anything, I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage to see how far I can go to meet the wishes of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, but I beg him not to take out the word "instruction." We attach great importance to that.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I must say that I do not see how the words "be brought up" can really be strained as far as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested they might be in regard to diet and things of that sort. I may mention that those words are already in the regulations, which have as much force of law as a Statute. Do the words "be brought up" in the regulations mean that the child cannot be given a piece of meat on a. Friday, if it happens to be a Roman Catholic; or that if it happens to be of the Orthodox Jewish faith it must have Kosher killed meat? I do not think that meaning applies to those words in the existing regulation. I believe the words mean "in the normal way in which they are morally and religiously brought up." That is what it is sought to imply by those words. I do not think in the present regulations their meaning is strained to the extent to which the noble and learned Viscount seems to me to have strained them to-day.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I point out to the noble Lord that in construing a word you must always construe it having regard to the setting and the collocation of the other words. If I have the words "brought up" simplicita, I should treat them as substantially equivalent to "instruction." I think in the existing rules they would be so treated. But if I find "brought up" used in a Statute which also uses the word "instruction," then in construing the words "brought up" I have to find some meaning not involved in the word "instruction." Therefore it is quite possible that in this collocation of words I might be involved in all these dietary problems. I agree that under the present rule, where you do not get the word "instruction," problems of that sort are not involved.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I am content to rest on the assurances of the noble and learned Viscount that he will look into the matter. Perhaps he will let me know before the Report stage whether he has been able to find some solution to these difficult legal problems about what people are to eat on Fridays, and so on. I think the noble and learned Viscount has been very fertile in finding reasons why it is difficult to accept my Amendment. I trust that when he comes to reconsider the matter he will see that the Amendment has solid and real advantages which may overweigh the rather technical legal objections to it. If I have piled Pelion on Ossa it is with the laudable intention of scaling to the top of Mount Olympus. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.55 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (4) (c), after "construction" to insert "acquisition or appropriation." The noble Lord said: I think it will be more convenient if I deal with all my Amendments on Clause 15 together, and then raise certain matters to which I ventured to refer on Second Reading. I think, first of all, there is a question of principle which covers the whole relationship between the central Government and the local authorities in cases, not only in this Bill but in others, where certain duties are entrusted to the local authorities. In this case we are dealing with only the major local authorities—that is to say, the councils of counties or county boroughs—so it seems less necessary to impose all the regulations in detail, or to exercise any meticulous control over them. I would urge that the central Government and the Government Department concerned should be content with laying down in the provisions of this Bill the general standards, the general principles and the general objectives they want to see, and leave it to the local authorities to work out those principles in their own spheres and in accordance with local circumstances, using to the full their own initiative.

But, beyond that, I think the clause as drawn in the Bill raises many practical difficulties; and a wrong principle must, I think, always cause difficulties and objections in practice. It will delay considerably getting anything done in the interests of the children. It will also cause a great deal of unnecessary correspondence between the officers of the local authorities and the officers of the Ministry concerned. That will entail an increase of staff, and will interfere with the national effort for production which we are all so anxious to further. I am afraid the past experience of local authorities in the matter of this kind of control has not been altogether very happy and does not encourage them in the belief that an adequate measure of discretion will be allowed to them. I have been given two illustrations of what the Home Office are inclined to do under their existing powers. In one, not only did they take into consideration whether the local authority should purchase a refrigerator, but they also wanted to be consulted as to the exact position it was to occupy in the room to which it was allotted.

In another case they questioned the purchase of a pair of trousers for a child by a local authority, and when they had authorised the purchase they were very anxious to know what was to happen to the old pair. In circumstances where a boy wants a new pair of trousers, obviously little use can be found for the old pair. Regulations of that type are possible under the clause as drafted, and they certainly seem both annoying and unnecessary. I am quite prepared to admit that it is very difficult to get regulations specifying exactly the amount of detail. It is the spirit of the regulations that is infinitely more important than the letter. I hope that those in the Department who are concerned with these regulations will fully bear in mind the principles, and will endeavour to cause the minimum interference and delay in all their dealings with the local authorities.

As the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said on another Amendment, this one does not go nearly so far as some of the local authorities would like. In fact, I am rather astonished at my own moderation in the Amendments I have put down. I have kept them as moderate as I can in the hope that the Government may be able to accept them. I do not think I need go into the reason why a certain word is altered; I hope it is self-explanatory. However, I shall be glad to add a word or two if necessary. I therefore have great hopes that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move the first of the Amendments in my name on this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 28, after ("construction") insert ("acquisition or appropriation")—(Lord Addington.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord has very lucidly explained the meaning of these four Amendments, the first of which he now moves. As he understands, there has been some slight redrafting of the words, which I take it is acceptable to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment and the following three.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("homes") to end of line 33 and insert ("or to the doing of anything (whether by way of addition, diminution or alteration) which materially affects the buildings or grounds or other facilities or amenities available for children in the homes")—(Lord Addington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

I beg to move the third Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert: ("(d) provide for consultation with the Secretary of State as to applicants for appointment to the charge of a home and empower the Secretary of State to prohibit the appointment of any particular applicant therefor.")—(Lord Addington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, leave out ("his approval") and insert ("such consultation")—(Lord Addington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

5.2 p.m.

Clause 16 [Accommodation of children in voluntary homes]:

On Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD ADDINGTON

This again is a clause which has caused a certain amount of trouble to the local authorities, and I should be glad if the noble Lord would explain the purpose of this clause and why it has been put in. So far as can be gathered by those who have to administer it, the only reason suggested is that the Home Office would like to know when a child is removed or placed into a voluntary home. It is not in the least clear why they want this information or, when they have got it, whether they will be able to do anything practical with it. If there is a desire to limit the amount of unnecessary work and correspondence, I should have thought the omission of this clause was one of the ways in which that could be achieved. Subsection (4), at any rate, would seem to be quite unnecessary, since the Secretary of State has the power, under Clause 30, to make regulations imposing requirements as to the facilities to be given to children in voluntary homes for receiving instruction in the religious persuasion to which they belong.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I had not appreciated that the noble Lord was going to raise this point. Clause 16 is plain enough. If the local authority provide for a child (as they may do) not in a home of their own but in a voluntary home, then the clause provides that the authority shall notify the Secretary of State. The explanation is that, if the child has to be moved, prima facie there must be something wrong, and the Home Secretary should know about it in order that he may make inquiries to find out whether that is so.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Burial or cremation of deceased children.

18.—(1) A local authority may cause to be buried or cremated the body of any deceased child who immediately before his death was in the care of the authority.

(2) Where a local authority exercise the powers referred to in subsection (1) of this section, they may if at the time of his death the child had not attained: he age of sixteen years recover any expenses incurred by them from any parent of the child, and where the child was illegitimate and any other person was, at the time of the death, making payments in respect of him under an order of any court made against the said other person as being the putative father of the child, from the said other person.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in subsection. (1), after "or" to insert: except where cremation is not in accordance with beliefs of the religious persuasion to which he belongs. The noble Earl said: My friends have asked me to try to persuade the Government to insert some safeguard for those persuasions which do not admit cremation as a normal practice. I understand that the Government are prepared to find some form of words which will protect those people. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 36, after ("or") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is perfectly right. The Government have this matter under consideration, but they are not ready to come to a definite decision. If the noble Earl will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment we may be able to come to a decision by the Report stage.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from "child," where that word occurs a second time, to the end of the subsection. The noble and learned Viscount said: The explanation of this Amendment is as follows. Your Lordships will know that a putative father of an illegitimate child is not one of the persons liable under Clause 24 to contribute towards the maintenance of a child in the care of a local authority. Of course, he remains liable under the Bastardy Acts, and Clause 26 enables a local authority, where the mother has not taken proceedings, to obtain an order from a court adjudging a person to be the putative father of an illegitimate child which is in the care of the local authority, or for which the local authority are liable, and requiring him to make such payments as he might be required to make on an application by the mother.

The Bill does not seek to impose any liabilities on the putative father beyond those imposed by the Bastardy Acts. Under these Acts the putative father may, on the application of the mother, be required to pay a weekly sum for the maintenance and education of the child, costs incidental to the birth, and, if the child has died before the making of the order, the funeral expenses. If a child dies after the making of the order, the liability of the putative father is limited to the payment of arrears under the order due at the date of the child's death. The words in Clause 18 which I am now proposing to delete would impose an additional liability for funeral expenses over and above the weekly payments. We have considered, on reflection, that it would be inequitable to make this provision in respect of an illegitimate child who happened to die while in the care of a local authority, and that it would be right to leave the putative father's liability to be determined under the general law as to affiliation orders. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 43, leave out from the first ("child") to the end of line 4 on page 13.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

May I ask one question on this? I think I have followed what the noble and learned Viscount said, but the interpretation clause, Clause 56, says that 'parent'…in relation to a child who is illegitimate, means his mother, to the exclusion of his father. Supposing that a child who was taken into a local authority home died shortly after being admitted, and that there was no order under the Bastardy Acts against the putative father, does the removal of these words mean that the mother would be responsible if the local authority called upon her to pay the funeral expenses for her illegitimate child?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. The Bastardy Acts impose upon the father only an obligation to pay the funeral expenses of the child where the child has died before the making of the order. If the child dies after the making of the order, there is no such obligation upon the father. The question here is: Shall we, in this Bill, place that obligation upon the father in this particular class of children—namely, those children in the care of the local authority—the father not being liable otherwise? It seems to us illogical to do that, and we feel that this matter ought to be governed by the general provisions of the Bastardy Acts, whether or not the child is in the care of a local authority.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Provision of hostels for persons under twenty-one.

19.—(1) A local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide hostels for persons—

1. (a) who are over compulsory school age but have not attained the age of twenty-one; and
2. (b) who are, or have at any time after ceasing to be of compulsory school age been, in the care of a local authority,

for their accommodation near the place where they may be employed, or seeking employment, or in receipt of education or training.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (3) of this section, a local authority may accommodate in hostels provided under this section persons who fulfil the conditions specified in paragraph (a), but not the conditions specified in paragraph (6), of subsection (1) of this section, as well as persons who fulfil the conditions specified in both those paragraphs; and a local authority, in determining how much hostel accommodation to provide under subsection (1) of this section, shall have regard to the desirability of facilitating the association of persons who fulfil the conditions specified in both those paragraphs with persons who do not.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conduct of hostels provided under this section, the persons who are to be accommodated in the hostels, and the charges which are to be made for accommodation therein; and regulations under this subsection may contain different provisions for different classes of cases and as respect different classes of hostels.

LORD ADDINGTON

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. If it is accepted it would dispense with the rather complicated wording of subsection (2), because you would then have an alternative which would cover it all. If the noble and learned Viscount would like anything added at a later stage, perhaps he would let me know. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is one of those little Amendments which look so attractive, and the noble Lord has moved it in such an attractive way, that I naturally feel inclined to accept it. As a matter of fact, it makes a fundamental difference to the whole clause. I am certain that the clause is right as it is. Prima facie the right is to provide hostels for those who have been in the care of a local authority. But in order that these people may not be completely isolated as a separate class of the community we provide that in those hostels the authorities may take in some people who have not been in care, the principle being given in the last three lines of subsection (2)—namely, …shall have regard to the desirability of facilitating the association of persons who fulfil the conditions specified in both those paragraphs with persons who do not. Therefore, the distinction is this. Under the clause, the right to provide hostel accommodation, which is done at the expense of the rates—at any rate in part—is intended for those children who have been in care. And, having established hostels for that primary purpose, it is laid down that they may, in some cases, take in some people who have not been in care. The effect of the Amendment would be to take away all that; and it seems to us—whether rightly or wrongly—inappropriate to this Bill. It would be appropriate for a general Bill saying that local authorities must provide hostels for all children for whom it is thought wise to do so, at the expense of the rates. But it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment to this Bill.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount and I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to leave out the whole subsection. It seems to me that this is one of the cases in which the power of making regulations is somewhat unnecessary. You are not dealing with very young children, and if you authorise a local authority to establish a hostel for these persons, surely they might be left to provide for them in their own way, without having it laid down in detail exactly how much they are to charge, who is to go in, and so forth It seems to be an unnecessary restriction on their discretion. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 22, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I entirely agree with the noble Lord to this extent if they were to be meticulous regulations, dealing with all the matters of detail, then it would be inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with by regulation. These matters are much better left to the discretion of the presumably sensible people who are running the home. Therefore, I can give the assurance that these regulations will not concern themselves with anything which can be described as detailed matters. They will deal with broad questions—for instance, such questions as accommodation, the number of children in the home having regard to space, and that sort of thing. For that sort of purpose there must be power to make regulations. I give noble Lords the assurance that the powers will be used with discretion and will not be used to descend to matters of detail.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (3), to omit "accommodation" and insert "board, lodging and other services provided". The noble and learned Viscount said: I am moving this Amendment because we desire that local authorities providing hostels should be enabled to provide services other than accommodation and we have sought to achieve that principle in these words.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 37, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("board, lodging and other services provided").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not quite certain of the effect of this Amendment, because it is odd to see, in the next Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the word "accommodation" being inserted again. I do not know what is the difference between "accommodation" and "other services." If the words suggested in the Amendment are the better words for subsection (3) of Clause 19, are they not the better words for Clause 20?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to look at that. What we want under Clause 19 is for local authorities to be able to provide breakfast as well as bed. In Clause 20 we are dealing with rather a different thing—financial assistance in respect of maintenance, education or training of persons over eighteen. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will look at it again and consider whether I should have the same word in both clauses.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

Would it not be better, since local authorities are responsible people, to avoid hedging them round with all sorts of regulations? Cannot they be trusted by Parliament to carry out the intentions of the Act without so many suggestions and restrictions? After all, they are responsible people, and if they are to be restricted in this way it will not help local government bodies to secure the sort of people that they want. Local authorities are elected by the people who elect Parliament, and I should have thought that to encourage local authorities you should give them more responsibility and not cause them to be always having to come to the Secretaries of State, or whoever the authority may be.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I find myself in broad agreement with what the noble Marquess says. That is why I said that it was important that the regulations which are to be used should not descend into detail and should not have a mass of instructions for everything. After all, we have to trust these people to run their affairs sensibly. On the other hand, there may be some broad matters in which we must aim at equality as between local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the land. With regard to those broad matters, it may be desirable to have some regulations; but, as I have said, they must not descend into detail.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Financial assistance towards expenses of maintenance, education or training of persons over eighteen]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move this Amendment, subject to what I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I will consider afterwards whether there are not some better words. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 42, after ("the") insert ("accommodation and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Contributions in respect of children in care of local authority.

23.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, Sections eighty-six and eighty-seven of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and Sections ninety and ninety-one of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937 (which provide for the making of contributions in respect of children committed to the care of a fit person or sent to approved schools) shall apply to children received into the care of a local authority under Section one of this Act as they apply to children committed to the care of a local authority as a fit person.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I shall discuss together the Amendments to page 14, line 42, page 14, line 43, page 15, line 1, and page 15, line 11. Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 enables an existing affiliation order to be varied in favour of a local authority or private "fit person" where an illegitimate child is committed to the care of a "fit person" or sent to an approved school. The effect of these Amendments is to apply the provisions of Section 88, where an illegitimate child has been received into the care of a local authority under Clause 1, and to amend Section 88 (4) (which limits the period in respect of which payments may be recoverable under affiliation orders varied in favour of local authorities and private "fit persons") so as to make it appropriate to such a case as well as to the case of a child committed to the care of a "fit person" or sent to an approved school. Under the Bill as drafted, Section 88 of the Act of 1933 is repealed, and its provisions replaced by those of subsection (5) of Clause 26 of this Bill. However, subsection (5) has been found to be defective in a number of respects and these Amendments, together with the Amendment to Clause 26, page 15, line 33, reinstate Section 88 in place of subsection (5) of Clause 26. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 42, leave out ("and eighty-seven") and insert (" to eighty-eight ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is a drafting one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 43, leave out ("and ninety-one") and insert ("to ninety-two").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 1, after ("schools") insert ("and for the payment to local authorities of sums due under affiliation orders or decrees for aliment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This again is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 7, after ("and") insert ("to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is covered by the explanation I have just given. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 11, at end insert: (" (3) In the application of the said Section eighty-eight to children in the care of a local authority under Section one of this Act, subsection (4) of the said Section eighty-eight (which relates to the duration of affiliation orders) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof there were substituted— 'after the child or young person has ceased to be in the care of a local authority under Section one of the Children Act, 1948'.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Persons liable to make contributions.

(3) A child who has attained the age of sixteen and is engaged in remunerative full-time work shall be liable to make contributions in respect of himself.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next two Amendments, at page 15, line 14, and page 15, line 23, are in effect drafting Amendments to give effect to the intention of the clause as regards persons detained in approved schools after attaining the age of eighteen. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, leave out ("in respect of a child").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 23, leave out ("child") and insert ("person").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

The last Amendment is one that I very much welcome. Your Lordships may remember that on Second Reading I made the point that we were calling too many of these people "children." I suggested that, where we could, we should adopt the words "young persons." Here, at any rate, it has been possible to do that. An occasion where a person has attained the age of sixteen and makes contributions "in respect of himself" is, I think, a very proper occasion on which to lift him or her out of the category of "child," because he or she has become by that time a self-supporting young man or a self-supporting young woman.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "full-time." The noble Lord said: It is not quite clear whether it is only when a child has full-time employment that he should make payments. In some cases, part-time employment yields a considerable amount of remuneration. Part-time employment for certain children might yield them even more remuneration than would full-time employment to other children. Surely the only criterion should be that a reasonable amount of remuneration received by a child justifies requiring him to make some contribution, although the degree of contribution is left to discretion to be exercised under the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 24, leave out ("full time").—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At first sight, I am bound to say that this Amendment looks attractive, because a child who is employed only part-time may be earning more than another child employed full-time. If a child is earning a substantial sum of money, it seems to me proper that that child should pay. On the other hand, one does not want to snatch away from the child his last sixpence and leave him with no pocket-money. It is a difficulty about which the local authorities feel strongly. There is this distinction between full-time and part-time employment: a person in full-time employment cannot apply to the Assistance Board, whereas a person in part-time employment can. Frankly, we are anxious to avoid this situation. Let us take the case of a child who is earning, say, £1 a week. If it is part-time employment, this situation might arise. The local authority might take the whole of the £1 a week and then the child might go to the Assistance Board and say,"Please give me 5s. a week," that being the standard adopted for his pocket-money. Obviously, as the local authorities themselves admit, it is very undesirable that they, in short, should milk the cow dry and then send the unfortunate cow round to the Assistance Board to get its pocket-money—if I may mix my metaphors. That is the distinction between full-time and part-time employment.

LORD ADDINGTON

Quite so.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We have given a good deal of thought to this question, and we have come to the conclusion, illogical though it seems—and I think that the local authorities would agree with us here—that it is necessary to limit this provision to full-time employment to prevent the danger which I have indicated arising. That is why we cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor what full-time employment is, because where a child is employed, say, in a factory which is working forty-four hours a week, one often finds that arrangements are made—and quite properly so—for the child to have two or four hours of those forty-four hours off, not in the factory but so that he or she may attend a continuation school. That happens, but the child nevertheless is doing a forty-hour week. Is that full-time employment? Because full-time employment in that factory is forty-four hours a week. Is that child included or is he not? I doubt whether it would be held that he is doing "full-time" work. I think that we might well take another look at this question before Report stage, and see whether we cannot put in some word which will ensure that, whether the child is in full-time or in any kind of employment, the local authority shall not take the whole of his money but shall leave him a reasonable amount. I suggest that wording to that effect would get over the difficulty the Lord Chancellor envisaged—that a child, having perhaps all his money taken from him (I will not repeat the "milking" metaphor!) would then have more or less to take money from the Assistance Board. I should like to see, first, whether the Lord Chancellor can answer that question. Secondly, I would ask whether the difficulty cannot be overcome by a slight redrafting of the clause, so that the local authority could not take the young person's all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The apprentice who goes to classes is working at his employer's expense and in his employer's time, and is being paid. The fact that he spends part of his day like that does not alter the fact that he is fully employed. I have forgotten some of the National Assistance Acts, although I know of matters which are coming up in connection with a National Assistance Bill which has passed through another place and reached your Lordships' House only yesterday. Therefore it is perhaps as well, as the noble Lord suggested, that we should look at the matter again, to see that these two Bills run side by side. My impression is that the definition of full-time employment is already to be found in various regulations and, I think, in Statutes. I believe there has not been much difficulty in defining what it means in practice, though I quite agree that several questions could be asked about it which would be very awkward. I think it is an old statutory phrase. However, we will gladly look at the matter, particularly in the light of the National Assistance Bill.

LORD ADDINGTON

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I hope this matter will be looked into. It is certainly one which arises in the case of boarded-out children. I know that local authorities do provide that the children get a certain amount of pocket money allowed from their earnings before they pay a contribution towards their board and lodging. I am glad that this point is being looked into and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Affiliation Orders.

.—(1) The said Act of 1933 and the said Act of 1937 shall have effect as if for sections eighty-eight and ninety-two thereof respectively (which sections provide that payments under affiliation orders and under decrees for aliment respectively may be ordered to be paid to persons entitled under the Act to receive contributions) there were substituted as respects England the provisions of the six next following subsections and as respects Scotland the provisions of subsection (8) of this section.

(2) In England, where—

1. (a) an illegitimate child is in the care of a local authority under section one of this Act, or
2. (b) an order is in force for the committal of an illegitimate child to the care of a local authority as a fit person, or
3. (c) a local authority are maintaining an illegitimate child in an approved school of which they are the managers or are liable in respect of an illegitimate child to make contributions to the managers of any other approved school under whose care the child is,

the local authority may make application to the court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the mother of the child resides for a summons to be served under section three of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872:

(4) An order under section four of the said Act of 1872 made on an application under subsection (2) of this section may be made so as to provide that the payments, or a part of the payments, to be made thereunder shall, in lieu of being made to the mother or a person appointed to have the custody of the child, be made to the local authority.

(8) In Scotland, where the condition specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of this section is fulfilled—

1. (a) the local authority shall have the like right as the mother to raise an action of affiliation and aliment concluding for payment of aliment for the child;
2. (b) where in any action of affiliation and aliment in respect of the child, whether at the instance of the local authority under the last foregoing paragraph or at the instance of the mother, the court grants or has granted decree against any person for payment of aliment for the child, the court may, at the time of granting the decree or at any subsequent time, on the application of the local authority, order that the sums due under the decree or any part thereof shall in lieu of being paid to the mother of the child be paid to the local authority or such other person as the court may direct;
3. (c) the local authority or other person in whose favour any such order as aforesaid is made shall have the like light to enforce the decree (so far as relating to the said sums) by diligence, including the right to take proceedings under the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act, 1882, as if the decree were a decree in favour of the authority or person.

In this subsection, references to the local authority include, where the context so requires, references to the education authority and the reference to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall be construed accordingly.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment deals with the old problem about reinstating the provisions of Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Clause 26, in its present form, makes altered provision in this respect, and provides in addition for a local authority to themselves apply for an affiliation order, or decree for affiliation and aliment, and receive the payments, or a part of the payments, to be made thereunder. Subsection (1) substitutes these new provisions for the existing provisions of Section 88 of the 1933 Act and Section 92 of the Scottish Act. Subsection (5), making altered provision for the variation of existing affiliation orders, has been found to be defective in a number of respects, and the effect of the Amendment I am now moving (as read with the Amendment to Clause 26, page 16, line 38), is to reinstate the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Acts for the variation of affiliation orders in favour of local authorities, and to confine the provision made in Clause 26 to the making of new affiliation orders in favour of local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 33, leave out subsection (1).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.34 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) after "England" to insert "or Wales." The noble Lord said: This is the first of quite a number of Amendments which seek only to add two words in a number of places in this Bill. Those of your Lordships who have read the Bill through will see that there is a contrast in every case between "England" on the one hand and "Scotland" on the other, and there is no mention of Wales at all. I am informed that there is a Statute which was passed in 1745 which says that any reference to England shall include a reference to Wales. That old Statute, passed in a year of rebellion, does not entirely satisfy the Welsh of to-day. The more modern practice (although it may not be strictly necessary, it is more in accord with the national aspirations of the people of Wales), is to include the word "Wales" with England in cases like this, where there is a contrast between the different parts of the United Kingdom. This is not the first time it has been done in a Statute. I am told that the first time it was done was when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister of this country, and I understand he insisted on having the words "and Wales" added. Although the noble Earl to whom I am referring is now dead, there is no reason why occasionally somebody—and especially one who happens to carry a Welsh name—should not stand up again for that small but integral part of the United Kingdom and suggest that the words "and Wales" or, in the appropriate case, "or Wales" should be added to this otherwise completely non-controversial measure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 42 after ("England") insert ("or Wales").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I ought to disclose an interest here. I had a grandmother who was Welsh and I must say I am very proud of that quarter of me, and the more we hear of Wales the better I like it. The old Statute to which the noble Lord referred was passed in 1746—a slightly more respectable date than 1745; nevertheless the principle is no doubt the same. If we are going to be very strict, we ought really to include Berwick-on-Tweed also. Under that Act the word "England" meant Berwick-on-Tweed as well as Wales, but I presume the inhabitants of Berwick-on-Tweed will not mind if we do not refer specifically to them in the Bill. I am happy to be reminded by the noble Lord opposite me, both in his name and in every way, of Wales, and therefore I have much pleasure in accepting this and the subsequent Amendments.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged, and so, too, I think, will be quite a number of people.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is an Amendment to leave out, in line 6, from the word "authority" down to "for" in line 8, and insert the words on the Order Paper. The local authority empowered by Clause 26 in its present form to apply for an affiliation order are the authority in whose care the illegitimate child is, or, if the child is in an approved school, the authority maintaining the child or liable to make contributions in respect of it. Under Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act the authorities who may apply for variation of existing affiliation orders are the authorities by whom applications for contribution orders may be made under Section 87. That is the same point that I raised before. This is an Amendment to reinstate the provisions of Section 88 of the Act of 1933, because we realise that our attempt to replace it was not altogether satisfactory. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to ("for") in line 8, and insert ("whose area includes the place where the mother of the child resides may make application to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in that place".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 32, alter ("order") insert ("made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 33, leave out (" made ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The object of empowering a local authority to apply for an affiliation order under this clause is to enable payments thereunder made by the putative father to be applied towards the maintenance of an illegitimate child in the care of a local authority. It is therefore inappropriate to specify that such an order, made on the application of a local authority, may be made so as to have this effect, and the Amendment specifies that an order made on the application of a local authority shall provide for payments being applied in the manner referred to, that being the only basis on which the order could be made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 34, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 35 and insert ("shall provide that the payments to be made under the order").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think that is obviously right, and we have much pleasure in accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "local authority" and insert: person who is from time to time entitled under Section eighty-six of the said Act of 1933 to receive contributions in respect of the child. The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (4), in its unamended form, provides for the payments under an affiliation order made on the application of a local authority being made to the local authority who have the illegitimate child in their care, or are maintaining or contributing towards his maintenance in an approved school. This would not be in accordance with the procedure for the payment of sums due under affiliation, orders varied in favour of local authorities under Section 88 of the Children and. Young Persons Act, 1933, or of contributions towards maintenance under Section 86. In these cases the payments are required to be made, as a matter of convenience, to the local authority in whose area the person liable to contribute is for the time being residing. They are then remitted by that authority (subject to a prescribed deduction to cover the cost of collection) to the Secretary of State, by whom they are taken into account in calculating the grant payable to the local authorities actually incurring expenditure in respect of these children. The purpose of this Amendment is to apply the existing system for disposing of contributions towards maintenance and payments under affiliation orders to the new provisions enabling affiliation orders to be made on the application of local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 37, leave out ("local authority") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit subsections (5) and (6), and to insert: (4) Part IV of the said Act of 1933 shall apply in relation to an order made as aforesaid as if it were an affiliation order in respect of which an order had been made under subsection (1) of section eight-eight of that Act. (5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the said section eighty-eight of the said Act of 1933 (which paragraph provides for the enforcement and variation of affiliation orders where an order under that section is in force) shall have effect notwithstanding anything in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Second Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Pro visions) Act, 1947 (which contain genera provisions for the variation and revocation of affiliation orders). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment relates to a topic with which I have already dealt. The object is to make use of the provisions of Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 and to get rid of the result of an attempt which we made to deal with that matter in another way, but which, on reflection, has been found to be unsatisfactory. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 17 and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

It was to be expected that something would happen when this Bill touched Scotland! In Scotland, the process corresponding to an affiliation order process in England is an action of affiliation and aliment. The Bastardy Laws Amendment Act of 1872 does not apply to Scotland. Under paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of the clause, a local authority has the like right as the mother to raise an action of affiliation and aliment, and, under Section 92, may apply to the court for payments due under a decree for aliment to be payable direct to them. By applying Part V of the 1937 Act to any sums so received by a local authority, provision is made for the sums to be paid over to the Secretary of State in the same way as any other contributions from persons liable to contribute towards the maintenance of children in the care of local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) where in an action of affiliation and aliment raised under the last foregoing paragraph, the Court grants decree against any person for aliment of the child, Part V of the said Act of 1937 shall apply to payments under the decree as if they were payments in respect of which an order had been made under subsection (1) of section ninety-two of that Act.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Extension of age limits in provisions relating to voluntary homes]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 14, leave out ("who have not attained that age") and insert ("over the age of fourteen who have not attained the age of eighteen.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Registration of voluntary homes.

(2) No voluntary home shall be carried on unless it is for the time being registered in a register to be kept for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State; and for the purposes of this subsection a change in the persons carrying on a voluntary home shall be treated as the establishment of a new home.

(3) The Secretary of State shall have full discretion whether or not to register a voluntary home under this section, and where it appears to the Secretary of State that the conduct of any voluntary home is not in accordance with regulations made under the next following section or is otherwise unsatisfactory he may, after giving to the persons carrying on the home not less than twenty-eight days' notice in writing of his intention so to do, remove the home from the register.

5.45 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (2), after "home," where that word occurs a second time, to insert "as principals." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment, but it strikes me as being one of great common sense. The whole object is to ensure that one should not have to consider a home a new home because the agents of the principals or owners are changed. I do not think that I need develop that argument; it is quite clear what we want to ensure. The assumption that it is a new home should be made only when the principals or the owners of the home are changed.

LORD MORRISON

I would like to ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment now. The Government have decided—largely because of the next Amendment which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—to recast this clause. Pending it being recast, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. It can come up again at the next stage of this Bill.

LORD O'HAGAN

I gather that the noble Lord does agree with the sense of the Amendment. If that is the case, I am quite prepared with the permission of the House to withdraw it now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) A person aggrieved by an order refusing an application for registration under the last foregoing subsection or cancelling any registration thereunder may within twenty-one days appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the home in question is situated. The noble Lord said: In view of what Lord Morrison has just said, I will not occupy more than half a minute in moving this Amendment. It is extremely important that there should be some form of impartial inquiry when an existing home is being struck off the register. I have put down in my Amendment that there should be a right of appeal to the local court of summary jurisdiction. I am not at all wedded to that idea; in fact, I am not sure that it is the right tribunal. Frankly, I put it down for one reason, and that is, that I find exactly the same words in the current Government Bill dealing with homes for aged persons. I thought that I could not go far wrong if I adopted the same formula. I understand, in view of informal talks which we have had on this matter, that another kind of tribunal will eventually be suggested by the Government and that an Amendment incorporating this provision will be brought forward at the Report stage. I am certain that we shall come to some agreement on this matter. All I ask now is that Lord O'Hagan, who has a similar Amendment, and I may have an early look at the proposals which the Government intend to put down on the Report stage. I am very much obliged for the way in which the Government are proposing to meet us in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

May I say that the-present position is that the noble Lord's Amendment which was discussed informally has been agreed in principle? Efforts are now being made to find suitable words to express what we all desire to do. I have taken note of the noble Lord's suggestion and we will arrange for early consultation to take place between Lord O'Hagan, the noble Lord and ourselves.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (5) to insert: ( ) Upon a voluntary home being registered in or removed from the register kept for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall notify the local authority for the area in which the home is situated of such registration or removal. The noble Lord said: It is thought desirable that a local authority in whose area a voluntary home has been established should know that that home has been registered; and further it is deemed essential that they should be informed if such a home is to be removed from the register. This is provided for in the first part of the Amendment, which proposes that the Secretary of State shall notify the local authority both of registration and of removal from registration. The second part is consequential on Clause 6 which, as drawn, provides that on notification of removal of a voluntary home from the register, the local authority shall have power to remove from the home and receive into their care all children for whom accommodation has been provided. It is essential that they should have full information. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD MORRISON

The reply that I have already made covers this Amendment. The whole of Clause 29 is to be recast, and I would be glad if the noble Lord would defer this to a later stage when it will be dealt with.

LORD ADDINGTON

I beg to withdraw the Amendment. I will not move the others connected with this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This Amendment is similar to one that I raised earlier. Where the Secretary of State is striking a home off the register the letter ought to come by registered post. Somebody is sure to be at hand in voluntary homes and there is no impediment whatever to the proper receipt being given for a registered letter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, after ("a") insert ("registered").—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MORRISON

The same reply obtains. The whole clause is being redrafted.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I did not think it came down to this. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30:

Regulations as to conduct of voluntary homes.

30. The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conduct of voluntary homes and for securing the welfare of the children therein, and regulations under this section may in particular—

1. (a) impose requirements as to the accommodation and equipment to be provided in homes, and as to the medical arrangements to be made for protecting the health of the children in the homes; and
2. (b) impose requirements as to the facilities which are to be given for children to receive instruction in the religious persuasion to which they belong,

and may contain different provisions for different classes of cases and as respects different classes of homes.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in paragraph (a), to delete "and," where that word occurs a third time, and insert: (b) authorise the Secretary of State to limit the number and ages of children who may at any one time be accommodated in any particular home;". The noble Earl said: This Amendment does not add anything to the powers which the Secretary of State is acquiring under this clause, but an important part of the Secretary of State's duties will be to make provision for the number of children to be accommodated in particular homes; and it would be quite proper for him to limit the number and ages of the children that may be kept in any one home. In particular, this would provide him with a partial remedy in the case of unsatisfactory homes, where he did not want to apply the thoroughgoing remedy of closing the home entirely. It would be rather difficult to close entirely a large home, because the duty of caring for a large number of children cannot be imposed suddenly, and without a good deal of preparation, upon what may be a small local authority. Therefore, it may be advantageous if the Secretary of State is empowered specifically to order that a certain number, or perhaps the younger or the older children, should be removed from the home. In the hope that this suggestion may be of some value to the Secretary of State, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.):

LORD MORRISON

I think the noble Earl's main purpose is to prevent overcrowding in homes. In that case I am advised that this would be a useful Amendment and I am able to accept it so far as the number of children is concerned. If the noble Earl would be prepared to move his Amendment without the words "and ages," and confine it to numbers, I could accept it.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State does not want power to be able to say that all younger children or all older children must be removed from a particular home, but if the Secretary of State does not want that power, heaven forbid that I should press him. I beg to withdraw my Amendment and move it again in the altered form suggested by the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert ("(6) authorise the Secretary of State to limit the number of children who may at any one time be accommodated in any particular home;").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) to insert: (c) impose requirements as to the qualifications of persons in charge of homes and of the responsible staff employed there. (d) set out conditions under which parents or guardians of children may be permitted and assisted to maintain contact with them.") The noble Lord said: This Amendment was in two parts, but I do not wish to move the first. The second part is important, because we know that there exist at present some voluntary homes where parents are not allowed on any condition to see their children while they are there. I think that should not be encouraged, and it would be a great advantage if this Amendment were accepted. It would mean that parents who wished to carry on their interest in their children would be able to do so. I do not think we can lay down the terms in every individual case, but it would be of great assistance if the general principle were accepted, and it were laid down that parents could see their children by right, no matter what kind of home or institution they were put in. I beg to move.

Amendment, as amended, moved— Page 20, line 3, at end insert: (c) set out conditions under which parents or guardians of children may be permitted and assisted to maintain contact with them.").—(Lord Amulree.)

THE LOKD CHANCELLOR

I greatly dislike the idea of setting out conditions under which parents may be permitted or assisted to maintain contact with their children. There might be cases in which parents were of such a character or so depraved that it would be desirable to do this. But, equally, I do not like setting out a general statement that the opportunity of parents to visit their children should be limited. Surely parents ought to have the right to visit their children. It ought not to be conditioned by rules and regulations by the Home Office or any other Department. In the few exceptional cases, the existing powers are quite adequate to prevent it being done. Although I sympathise with what the noble Lord has in mind, I should not like to lend myself to a course which seems to indicate that parents can see children only when permitted to do so by some rule. I should be happier if we did not have it in the Bill.

LORD AMULREE

In view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause: (2) Where any regulation under this section provides that this subsection shall have effect in relation thereto, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with the regulation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. The noble Lord said: The Bill, as drafted, provides these sanctions for the enforcement of regulations under this clause governing the conduct of voluntary homes: (a) Before the date appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions of Clause 29, the Secretary of State may issue directions on the persons responsible for the management of a voluntary home, if he is satisfied that the welfare of the children in the home is endangered. Non-compliance with such directions may result in court proceedings and, if the court is satisfied that the welfare of some of the children is endangered, in a court order for the removal of all the children from the home: (b) As from the date appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions—

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord is reading from the clause which is coming back in a completely new form.

LORD MORRISON

Yes. If the noble Lord would rather have the matter deferred until he can see the new clause, I would agree.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I thought the noble Lord's explanation was taking us back to a clause which none of us had discussed because we knew a new draft was being prepared. I did not mean to stop the noble Lord in his argument. All I would like to say at this stage, on this intended Amendment, is that I very much doubt whether a fine in the police court is the right penalty for a breach of one of these regulations by a voluntary home. Power will be given under the redrafted Clause 29 to take the children away from that home, or to shut the home down. It does not seem to me that this is a case where the home should be taken to the police court. It is better to have the regulation, and for the inspector to go and say: "You are not acting in accordance with the regulations, and if you do not do so we shall have to take some of the children away from you, or shut the home down."

I would add that there is no reason, it seems to me, why, for a breach of these regulations, there should be a fine on a voluntary organisation which is doing exactly the same work as is a local government authority in exactly similar homes. I suggest to the Government that if the regulations are not being carried out the right sanctions are first, inspection by inspectors; and secondly, the taking of steps to disqualify a home from having so many children, or, if it is a thoroughly bad home, to disqualify it altogether. You can do it with a local authority home; and when we get the re-drafted Clause 29 you can do it—subject to some appeal—with a voluntary home. I would like this Amendment left for the point to be considered whether a fine up to £50 is in any way appropriate to remedy the breach of regulations in regard to the running of an efficient home, when there are left: properly in the hands of the Secretary of State much better sanctions,—namely, the taking away of a certain number of children, shutting down the home altogether, or enforcing a change of management on them. I think that is far better than having petty fines in the police court for a breach of a regulation which is not of general application and concerns only the running of the home. I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, as he suggested, and we can see whether we cannot deal with it much better by the procedure which I have indicated.

LORD MORRISON

I apologise to the noble Lord and to the Committee for having inadvertently revealed the draft of the new Clause 29. It had to come out sooner or later. I gather that in view of the fact that the new clause has not yet been put before the Committee, the noble Lord would prefer this Amendment to be deferred until the new clause has been considered. I am quite agreeable to that, and will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:

Powers of Secretary of State as to voluntary organisations.

32.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations control the making and carrying out by voluntary organisations of arrangements for the emigration of children.

(3) The power conferred by Part II of this Act on the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the boarding-out of children by local authorities shall extend also to the boarding-out of children by voluntary organisations:

Provided that in the provisions of the said Part II conferring that power any reference to the supervision and inspection by a local authority of boarded-out children and the premises in which they are boarded out shall, in relation to children boarded out by voluntary organisations, be deemed to be a reference to supervision and inspection either by a local authority or, if the regulations so provide, by a voluntary organisation.

6.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after "may," to insert "after consultation with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment can be stated very briefly. The regulations about the emigration of children will affect not only voluntary societies in this country but their branches overseas and all affiliated societies overseas which may co-operate with them, and may be, also, the Dominion Governments overseas, a number of whom are closely interested, and are actively and generously assisting in the migration of children. It, therefore, seems desirable that the regulations which may be made under this clause should not be finalised until their possible reactions in the Dominions overseas have, at least, been considered. I believe I am right in saying that it is not a natural function of the Home Office to keep in continuous touch with the special problems of legislation in all the Dominions, but that that function is rather a function of the Commonwealth Relations Department. This Amendment proposes consultation with that Department before the regulations are actually published. It may be said that such consultation between Departments will, of course, take place, and I have no doubt that such an assurance would be sufficient for this Committee. But I cannot help thinking that there will be some advantage in actually inserting these words, in order that people in the Dominions who may have occasion to study this legislation may know that this point has not been overlooked and that the regulations have been made after consultation with the United Kingdom Department which is known to keep in constant touch with the Dominions. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 34, after ("may"), insert the said words.—(The Earl of Scarbrough.)

LOKD MORRISON

I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, because it has already been agreed with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that he will be consulted about the provisions of the regulations to be made controlling the making and carrying out by voluntary organisations of arrangements for the emigration of children. The practice will be to consult any Department whose interest is affected by the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. In those circumstances, I am informed that it is unnecessary to insert the noble Earl's Amendment in the Bill.

THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH

I am satisfied with the noble Lord's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (3), after "organisations" and immediately before the proviso, to insert: and such regulations may apply to children in the care of voluntary organisations any or all of the provisions of Clause 13 as if such children were in the care of a local authority. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down in order to make quite certain that the provisions for boarding out children will be effective in regard to voluntary homes as well as to local authorities. When I put the Amendment down I was not quite sure (I am not sure now) whether that point was covered in the Bill. If the point is covered, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 46, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Amulree.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I understand it aright, this point is covered in the Bill.

LORD AMULREE

In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMULREE moved, before the proviso in subsection (3), to insert: (4) The Secretary of State may in regard to children under the care of voluntary organisations, by regulations authorise local authorities to incur expenditure and take action under Clauses 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as if such children were or had been under the care of the local authority. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to that which I have just withdrawn, but I do not think the point here is covered. The Amendment is put down to ensure that children in voluntary homes shall have the same kind of rights and privileges as those enjoyed by children in local authority homes, in regard to visits by their parents, payment of funeral expenses, accommodation in hostels and things of that sort. Although the principle that children should be taken by the local authority is accepted, I think it would be a pity for the parents of those children to get extra benefits. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The scheme of this Bill is to allow local authorities to act towards children in their care as a good parent would act towards his own children. The object of this Amendment, if I understand it aright, is to apply the clauses mentioned to a different class of children altogether—namely, the children in the care of voluntary associations. It seems to us inappropriate to take a group of clauses from the provisions which are applicable to local authorities and make them applicable to a very different case—the children in charge of voluntary associations. Those bodies are voluntary, and they run their homes in their own way. The sanction there is that they should run them properly and not inadequately, and they are under the control of the Secretary of State. If they are net behaving adequately and properly towards their children, he can close the homes down. So long as there are voluntary homes—and we want to continue them—the less we interfere in their running the better it is, always provided there is some special sanction. We have the right to go in and say: "You are not doing your job properly, and we shall close you down." I think it is inappropriate to apply clauses which are designed for local authorities to voluntary associations who are really in a different category. If, as I understand it, the Amendment seeks to do that, then we cannot accept it.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the explanations given on this Amendment. He has referred to the fact that children coming under voluntary organisations are a different category of children, and that in the drafting of this Bill two groups are clearly defined: first, those children in the care of local authorities and, secondly, the children who come under the auspices of the voluntary organisations. But under whichever category the children may come, they are all deprived children, and so far as they are concerned they require the same assistance, facility for training and contact with their parents. I think the point the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has made, that children coming under the care of voluntary organisations should have the same privileges and facilities as those cared for by local authorities, should, by some means, be incorporated in the Bill. Otherwise it would appear that those children will not enjoy the same benefits of the hostel facilities of Clause 19, the maintenance, education and training facilities under Clause 20, and the payment of expenses of parents visiting the children or attending funerals under Clause 22.

If I be right, that seems to me to be placing a severe handicap both on the neglected child who is taken care of by voluntary organisations, and the parent who comes into contact with a voluntary organisation but not a local authority. It will mean that as there are powers within this Bill for public grants to be given for the maintenance of voluntary associations, the voluntary effort over a period of years will, in fact, become a dead letter. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could assure me at a future stage whether the fears I have tried to enunciate are, in fact, founded.

LORD ADDINGTON

May I add one word for the older children? These children do require special consideration. In suitable cases the local authority should take some responsibility for the later stages of their education. It is authorisation and not requirement, but in the case of particularly brilliant children who have got beyond the age of sixteen or seventeen, it might facilitate their training.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I want parents to have every opportunity of seeing the children. It is only in the most exceptional cases that we have to prevent the parents having such an opportunity. I cannot think it right to apply to this case the machinery which governs local authorities. After all, why do we give local authorities power to make these payments? It is because we want a local authority to act as a good parent would act. As a good parent would undoubtedly want to see the children, so the local authority should have this power with regard to the children in their care. When a child is not in the care of a local authority, but is in the care of a voluntary association, then, equally, I am all in favour of allowing parents to have every facility to visit the child. But I cannot think it right to impose that. We are not dealing with local authority children in this Amendment but with voluntary association children.

I very much hope that voluntary associations will do all they can to facilitate this sort of thing, but I cannot think it right to transplant the machinery which applies to local authorities—because they are dealing with their children as a good parent would—to voluntary associations which are not the concern of the local authority. We have to try to deal with that matter quite differently and although, as I have said, the policy that we seek to adopt is to encourage that sort of thing in every way, I cannot think it right to apply the local machinery in this case. I will certainly look at the matter and see whether anything can be done in regard to it.

LORD AMULREE

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation and, on the undertaking that he will look into it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, to add to the proviso to subsection (3): but such supervision and inspection shall be carried out either by such authority or by such organisation to the exclusion by the one of the other. The noble Lord said: The intention of those who have put down the Amendment which I am moving, is to do nothing to discourage people from taking boarded-out children. It is clear that too much supervision will be very discouraging to people, and will make them unwilling to take up the boarding out of children. While it is necessary, of course, to have adequate supervision, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that we do not want to have too much interference. It is with the object of ensuring freedom from excessive interference that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)

LORD MORRISON

I was under the impression that perhaps the noble Lord would not move this Amendment, as some discussion upon it took place with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and it was promised that the Amendment would be examined to make sure that its point was met. I am advised that the Amendment is now unnecessary. Clause 32 (3) empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the boarding out of children by voluntary organisations. The regulations will specify the circumstances in which supervision and inspection are to be carried out by a local authority or, alternatively, by a voluntary organisation. I understand that the point about unnecessary duplication of visits is also properly covered.

LORD O'HAGAN

With that assurance I certainly will not press my Amendment. I have no doubt that the: noble Lord will carry out to the full the intentions he has already expressed far better than they would be effected by the wording I have suggested. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move this Amendment. A penalty may not be appropriate for contravention of some of the requirements of regulations under this clause dealing with the emigration of children and the boarding out of children by voluntary organisations. The Amendment accordingly provides that the penalty (a fine not exceeding £50) shall attach only to regulations which specify that the new subsection inserted by this Amendment should have effect in relation to them.

Amendment moved— Page 21, leave out lines 9 to 19 and insert: ("(4) Where any regulation under this section provides that this subsection shall have effect in relation thereto, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with the regulation.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.