CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 16 March 1948 vol 154 cc794-851

2.38 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:

" Prolongation of care of children by voluntary organisations.

.—(1) Where a parent or guardian of a child who is in the care of a voluntary organisation desires to take over the care of the child such parent or guardian shall give to the voluntary organisation not less than two months' notice in writing of his intention so to do and upon the receipt of such notice the voluntary organisation shall at the expiration of such notice surrender the care of the child to such parent or guardian unless it considers that it would not be in the interests of the welfare of the child that such parent or guardian should take over the care of the child in which case it may apply to the Juvenile Court, or in Scotland the Sheriff: having jurisdiction in the area in which such parent or guardian resides, or an order under this section. Provided that such voluntary organisation shall within 20 days of the receipt of the said notice inform such parent or guardian in writing of the action which it intends to take under this section.

(2) Upon an application under this section the juvenile court or the Sheriff as the case may be, may—

1. (a) grant the application and order that the rights and powers of such parent or guardian shall vest for such period as the court or Sheriff thinks fit in the local authority for the district in which the place where the child is cared for by the voluntary organisation is situated, or
2. (b) dismiss the application.

(3) Where an order is made under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection the local authority shall unless and until otherwise directed by the Secretary of State permit the child to remain in the care of the voluntary organisation on whose application the order was made.

(4) Where an application under subsection (1) of this section is dismissed the parent or guardian shall have the right to take over the care of the child upon the dismissal of the application.

(5) Any person who takes over the care of a child or removes him from a place where he is being cared for by a voluntary organisation otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section or while an application to the Court under this section is pending shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. "

The noble Earl said: Last week we were discussing Clause 30 of this Bill, and a very well-intentioned Amendment, with which I had much sympathy, was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. The object of that Amendment was to provide that the Secretary of State might make regulations by which parents of children in voluntary homes could have access to their children, in accordance with directions issued from Whitehall. I have great sympathy with his arguments, and I have particularly great objection to any practice, such as exists in certain voluntary homes, which tends to deny to parents reasonable access to their children.

I yield to no one in this House in my enthusiasm for the rights of parents. I was particularly struck by the remarks that fell from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the Second Reading, and I hope that, as a result of what my noble friend said, practices designed to prevent parental access to foundlings will cease. My object in calling attention to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is to quote the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor (Column 605, Hansard), when he urged your Lordships to reject the Amendment. The Lord Chancellor said: There might be cases in which parents were of such a character or so depraved that it would be desirable "— that they should not have access to their children. There are, of course, one regrets to say, many such cases. We come up against the fact that such parents, however depraved and however undesirable they may be, may now remove their children from voluntary homes whenever they wish, without giving the voluntary homes any notice and without giving any proper assurances that they are able to bring up their children. These are parents who have evaded their parental responsibilities perhaps for many years and who, often through their own fault, have failed to provide their children with a home in which they could be brought up.

It sometimes happens that an immoral woman places her children with a voluntary society in order that she may form new associations. After a period of years have gone by, she forms an association of a somewhat more permanent character—or one which she believes is likely to prove more permanent. In such a case the children, being older and possibly nearer to wage-earning status, can be of some help to the mother. The mother comes down to the voluntary society and demands the immediate withdrawal of her child. And in such cases there is no barrier, no obstacle whatever, to the unconditional resumption of parental rights. It is a matter on which voluntary societies feel very keenly indeed, and I ask your Lordships to realise their point of view, to realise what it means to the manager of a good home to see one of the children whom he has brought up for many years, to whom he has become attached, and for whose future, it may be, he has bright hopes, taken away from the home to a home which he has every reason to suspect is thoroughly unsuitable for the child, and one in which the child may suffer moral harm.

That is the problem that has been urged upon me by more than one voluntary society. That is the problem to which I have tried to find an answer in the Amendment which I have put down. I am prepared to be told that my solution is the wrong solution; I shall accept it in all meekness if the suggestions I make are torn to pieces, and if I am told that for all sorts of reasons, they are impracticable and undesirable. I hope, however, that I shall not be told there is no problem, for the problem is there; and if we do not try to solve that problem in this Bill, then it will remain unsolved, perhaps for many years.

Before my proposed clause is rejected, let me explain what I am trying to do. Let us see whether the proposals I have made are simple and proper answers to the problem. In the first place, I give the voluntary societies the right, which they may exercise or not, as they choose, to demand two months' notice before a child is withdrawn. There is nothing very novel or unusual about requiring notice before the withdrawal of a child. I send my children to public schools, and if I want to withdraw one of them from a boarding school I have to give a whole term's notice. If I fail to give a term's notice I have to pay a whole term's fees; I am subject to a heavy penalty if I disregard that requirement about giving notice of withdrawal. It is, of course, open to the voluntary society to waive the notice, and I suppose that in most cases they would do so, since the society will usually be only too glad to restore a child to its parents, in proper circumstances and with due safeguards. I have put down the requirement for two months' notice in order to provide for cases in which further action seems to be indicated.

Then I have provided that the voluntary society, after giving notice to the parent, may take the child before a judicial tribunal—a children's court, or in Scotland a sheriff's court—and argue the case against sending the child back to the home from which it has been rescued. The matter may thus be fully and fairly examined by competent people. I have provided that the child shall be given equivalent status to that of the child for whom a resolution has been passed under Clause 2. Finally, I have provided that a local authority, having assumed the care of the child, shall leave it in the voluntary home, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs. That appears to me the best and proper solution of a great and serious danger. I commend my Amendment to your Lordships. This Bill is full of remedies that are to be applied when a child is found in bad circumstances, but there is nothing, or very little, in this Bill of a preventive character. I am moving this Amendment in the hope that action may be taken to prevent a child being put into circumstances in which it will be in imminent peril. Can His Majesty's Government suggest other and better ways of dealing with an urgent problem on which I am sure they have received good advice, and which is keenly felt by the voluntary societies who have worked in this field for such a long time? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 21, at end insert the said clause.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

LORD SALTOUN

Before the Government reply, I should like to add one word about something which is important. There may often be cases where not only does the school not want to lose the child but the child does not want to go. Under the Bill, a child will be moved where it does not want to go, to people who do not want to keep it, and thus to a grave and problematical future. It is extremely important not to put fears in the path of children. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that is very important.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

From his remarks, the noble Earl who moved this Amendment seemed to anticipate that it would not be accepted. I am bound to say that his anticipation was correct. I am surprised that the noble Earl, of all people in this House, should have made himself responsible for this Amendment. Although there are outstanding different points of view in these matters, I confess that I thought he and I felt much alike on this question. Of course there is the problem of bad homes and unfit parents, but, thank God, they are in a great minority. Because we hear only too often in the papers about these cases, do not let us run away with the idea that this is a common state of affairs. It is not.

We start—and I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with this—on the assumption that he who separates a child from its parents undertakes a grave responsibility. The experience which I have had, both judicially and otherwise, would always tend to make me stop to consider, and to consider yet again, whether, in doing that, I am doing the right thing. If the parent is a really bad parent, then at times a certain course may be necessary; and there is elaborate machinery for it either under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, where a court order can be obtained, or under Clause 2 of this present Bill, by which the local authority can assume parental rights.

Just consider what is now proposed by the noble Earl. He instanced his own boy at a public school, and said that he has to give two months' notice. In a sense, he has; but that means really this: he can withdraw his boy any day that he so desires. It is true that he may have to pay some sum of money, but he can withdraw the boy; he is the sole judge as to whether or not the boy should be withdrawn. I think that that is eminently proper. What is proposed by this Amendment is that a parent who has put his child into the care of a voluntary society has no right to withdraw that child under a period of two months. It is not a question of paying any money. He cannot get the child out. One of the commonest reasons, if not the commonest, why children go into the care of these voluntary societies is some temporary occurrence at home—as, for instance, when the mother has a new baby and puts the child into the care of a voluntary society. The mother may fall ill; or there may be some upset in the home, so that the child is handed over by the parent to the voluntary society.

This new clause suggests that, under those circumstances the voluntary society have the right to say to the parent, when those conditions are removed, "No, you must not take this child back for two months." Not only have they that right, but they have a greater right. They can go before the magistrates and argue whether it is more in the interests of the child that it shall stay with the voluntary society or shall go back to its own parent. That is treating the parental right and the parent just as an ordinary litigant would be treated. It completely disregards the fact that our whole system is built up on the fact that parents have rights with regard to their children. That is the basis of family life. I agree that, unfortunately, people are sometimes found who are unworthy of that trust and responsibility, in which case, if just cause is shown, the law provides its remedy. To my mind, it is intolerable that we should treat the parents in this way, making the parents go cap in hand to the voluntary society and say "Please may I have my child back?" The voluntary society say: "No; not for two months. At the end of two months, we are going to the court to ask them to decide whether it is better that we should keep the child." That is not the policy of this Bill at all.

To my mind, the harm that would be done by adopting any such principle as this would far outweigh the good that might be done in extreme cases. Parents would be reluctant to allow their children into the hands of these voluntary societies at all if they knew that, once the children were there, they might never have them back, if the magistrates thought they should not go back. This is not a power which a local authority have. When the local authority take a child into their care, unless they have assumed parental rights, with all the protections of court procedure, the parent may ask for the child to be returned home. It is suggested, however, that these voluntary societies should have this new right. I am not going to say a word against voluntary societies. They are legion. Their types and conditions differ enormously. Some of them are large, some are small; some are good and some of them are not so good. I am wholly unprepared—and I am sure the vast majority of your Lordships in all parts of the House will agree with me—to give to every voluntary society the right to go to the magistrates and say, "Do you not think we had better have this child, rather than the parents?" That is wrong.

I think the solution is this. Maintain parental rights, giving parents rights over their own children; but by all means see to it that the machinery under this Bill and under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, is adequate to deal with those cases where the child is being brought up in morally or physically bad surroundings, where it can be really established that the child is in need of care and protection. In those circumstances, and in those circumstances only, to my mind, have we the right to come between the child and its parents. Therefore, in rejecting this Amendment, as I do, I am not denying that there is a problem, nor that the noble Lord may have to consider particular machinery for dealing with particular cases. I give the noble Earl his point there. But to make this sweeping provision that a parent cannot withdraw his child from a voluntary society, no matter what may be the circumstances under which he put the child—perhaps temporarily—into the care of that voluntary society, would be a retrograde step; and it would go far to destroy what is commonly known as the sanctity of family life. For that reason I could never be a party to accepting this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to say that I have only slight acquaintance with one home of the kind referred to, and nearly all the cases there are not temporary cases. The children are there because of divorce and broken-up homes. They are there without any prospects of a good home life. My noble friend's experience is greater than mine and I think he would agree that that is a very great cause of children going to these homes.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

As I have already indicated, I shall not press this Amendment. I agree that we should stop and think many times before destroying the relation between parent and child. I have provided in my Amendment for a great deal of study and thinking, not only by a judicial authority but by a public authority (and not a voluntary society at all) stepping in in certain very bad cases. A voluntary society, of course, cannot assume parental care; there is nothing in the Bill about that. Yet under Clause 2 a local authority can. How amply and fully the local authority protect themselves against the parent who wishes to resume those rights! The local authority may, if they think it right, rescind their resolution; otherwise the only remedy on the part of the parent is himself to come before the court to initiate an action to have the resolution rescinded. The local authorities have taken good care to protect themselves very thoroughly against parents in such a situation.

If I understood the noble and learned Viscount correctly—and I trust that I did—he undertook to consider whether some machinery cannot be devised for dealing with exceptional cases. I agree that the cases which I have envisaged are exceptional, but they do exist. If I am right in thinking that the noble and learned Viscount will consider whether a voluntary society, knowing that one of their children is going to a really bad home, can take steps either to prevent the child going to that home or, when it is there, to arrange for it to be visited by an inspector, then I shall feel that the efforts I have made on the child's behalf have not been entirely in vain.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the child is in care the machinery of Clause 2 can be adopted. If the child is not in care, the machinery provided by the Children and Young Persons' Act, which is meant to deal with that particular case, can be adopted.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33:

After-care of children formerly in care of local authorities or voluntary organisations.

33.—(1) Where it comes to the knowledge of a local authority that there is in their area any child over compulsory school age who at the time when he ceased to be of that age or at any subsequent time was, but is no longer,—

1. (a) in the care of a local authority under Section one of this Act, or
2. (b) in the care of a voluntary organisation,

then unless the authority; are satisfied that the welfare of the child does not: require it they shall be under a duty so long as he has not attained the age of eighteen to advise and befriend him or, in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection, to secure that the voluntary organisation advise and befriend him.

(2) Where a child over compulsory school age—

(b) ceases to be in the care of a voluntary organisation,

the authority or organisation shall inform the local authority for the area in which the child proposes to reside.

(3) Where a child whom a local authority or a voluntary organisation are advising and befriending in pursuance of this section pro poses to transfer his residence to the area of another local authority, the first-mentioned local authority or, as the case may be, the voluntary organisation, shall inform the local authority in whose area the child proposes to reside.

3.3 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after "him," where that word first occurs, and insert: Provided that where in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection the local authority are satisfied that the voluntary organisation have the necessary facilities for advising and befriending him, the local authority may make arrangements whereby while the arrangements continue in force he shall be advised and befriended by the voluntary organisation instead of by the local authority.

The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (1) of this clause provides for the after-care of children under the age of eighteen who have been in the care of a local authority under Clause 1, or in the case of a voluntary organisation. In its present form it obliges the local authority in whose area the child is to advise and befriend him, unless, in the case of a child who has been in the care of a voluntary organisation, they secure—and those are the important words—that the voluntary organisation advise and befriend him. I think it is unreasonable to expect a local authority to secure that a voluntary organisation who have undertaken to advise and befriend a child continue to fulfil their undertaking. The most you can ask—and this the Amendment accordingly provides—is that the local authority may, if they are satisfied that the voluntary organisation have the necessary facilities for advising and befriending the child, make arrangements for his being advised and befriended by the voluntary organisation while the arrangements continue in force. The local authority will be relieved of their obligation to supervise the after-care provided by the voluntary organisation, but will be able at any time to end the arrangement if they are dissatisfied with it. I think that is a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, leave out from (" him ") to end of line 34 and insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think this Amendment effects an improvement on what was previously in the Bill. All one wants the local authority to do is to find out whether the voluntary society which previously had the child under their care will take him back. One does not want to force the local authority to supervise the activities of the voluntary organisation when they have taken the child back. As the Amendment seems to effect what is desired, we on these Benches welcome it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), after "shall" to insert "where practicable." The noble Earl said: This is a very brief Amendment. There is another such Amendment with the same wording at line 46, about which I shall say a few words later. The first Amendment is designed to secure that, where practicable, the local authority shall be informed of the place where the child intends to reside. Subsection (2) of the clause states: where a child over compulsory school age—

1. (a) ceases to be in the care of the local authority…or
2. (b) ceases to be in the care of a voluntary organisation,

the authority or organisation shall inform the local authority for the area in which the child proposes to reside. I am not sure that in every case the authority or the organisation will know exactly where the child intends to reside, and for those reasons I suggest that the words "where practicable" be inserted. It is a small point and one upon which perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be able to give me some enlightenment, and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 40, after (" shall ") insert (" where practicable ")—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As the noble Earl said, this is a small point. My instructions are to resist the Amendment, but, if the noble Earl will not press the matter now, I will consult again with my advisers to see whether they really mind very much about it. It is desirable that this information should be lodged, and the noble Earl will agree that it should be done wherever possible. However, I agree that there may be cases in which it is impossible to do it. But it is felt that if the words "where practicable" are put in, it may lead authorities to become a little lax about the matter. If an absolute obligation is imposed, and it is stated that it must be done, then, should circumstance arise when it simply cannot be done, the noble Earl may console himself with the phrase: "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia "—one cannot be expected to do that which it is impossible to do—and the absoluteness of the obligation would not matter. On the other hand, it the words "where practicable" are inserted, it is felt that many local authorities who are not much affected by these matters may not concern themselves sufficiently about it. That is why it has been felt wiser not to put: the words in. But, as I have said, I will see whether my advisers really think it matters very much. If the noble Earl, after what I have said, particularly wants the words inserted, perhaps at a later stage we might consult together, but at the present moment, for the reasons I have given, I would rather not have the words in.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Purely on a matter of English, I should like to know whether the Lord Chancellor is quite satisfied with the phrase which is used throughout this clause, that the child "proposes to reside" in a particular place. My feeling may be pedantic, but surely no child has any proposal about where he is to reside; his parents, or somebody in the position of his parents, direct him to go to a particular place. Perhaps it is a small matter, but when the case comes up, and it is said that some cruel parent is taking the child away, it is a fact that the child itself has no proposal. An infant does not propose to take any step of that sort; it has to go where it is told. I suggest that it is worth considering whether some very slight alteration in the clause might not remove the ground for criticism which may be made hereafter.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask what is the sanction which can be applied if a local authority fail to notify? I suppose the answer is that there is not one. I am sure that all of us on this side desire that these notifications shall be made in every possible case. Whether he puts the words in "where practicable" or whether he does not, I doubt whether there is any legal sanction which can be used against the local authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If a local authority commit a criminal offence they can be penalised with the appropriate punishment. The trouble is that authorities, whether they are local or otherwise, usually have no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned. That being the case, of course, the punishment can be only in the form of a fine. In regard to the point which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, made, I am grateful to him, and I will look at it. My own feeling with regard to this matter is that in the north of England, perhaps at a time when there is unemployment, there may be a child (and when I say child I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the matter may well affect young people of eighteen years of age) who proposes some-thing on these lines: "I am going south to seek my fortune." In those circumstances, the child might not be able to indicate the particular local authority to whose area he was going. In a case of that sort, clearly one could not insist on the local authority being named. But we want to keep local authorities up to the mark, and we are not desirous of pointing out to them any possible way out of their obligations.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I have no wish to delay the Committee. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is put forward on these grounds. A local authority or voluntary organisation who are providing after-care for a child may not always know when the child proposes to transfer his residence to the area of another local authority, and it would be impracticable for them to comply with the requirements of sub-section (3) of this clause as drafted, unless they had knowledge of the proposed transfer. This Amendment modifies the requirement in this sense, and, I think, meets the point which the noble Earl raised on the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 42, leave out from (" Where ") to (" advising ") in line 43, and insert (" it comes to the knowledge of a local authority or a voluntary organisation that a child whom they have been ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This does seem largely to meet the point which we have previously been discussing. From the Bill, as it stands, it seems as though something rather onerous was being placed upon these local authorities and these voluntary organisations. Now we are relieving them by making them do this only when it comes to their knowledge. I think that is a considerable improvement.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would consider the insertion of some provision to make it compulsory for a child or parents to notify the local authority of where he does propose to reside. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to compel a child or parents to say what is the area to which the child is going.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should be sorry to put that obligation on a child. I can well imagine a child, as it were, hiking down the road and eventually remaining wherever convenient. If you put an obligation on a child to notify a local authority, that obligation would be almost always disregarded. I would certainly rather not do that.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for this. It seems to meet the point of my next Amendment on the Paper; I think that his words cover mine.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is intended to deal with one simple point. There may be cases where not only have a local authority no proposal made to them as to what the child is going to do but also where they may not hear until afterwards what the child has done. When that takes place then, equally, notification ought to be given. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 44, after (" transfer ") insert ("or has transferred ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is consequential on the Amendment which we have just made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, leave out line 47 and insert (" said other local authority ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Extension of certain Child Life Protection provisions to children up to eighteen]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to substitute for Clause 35 in the Bill as printed the following new clause:

" 35. Where any of the provisions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last foregoing section apply in respect of a child at the time when he ceases to be of compulsory school age, the said provisions and the provisions of this Act relating thereto shall continue to apply in respect of him—

1. (a) until the time when he attains the age of eighteen or ceases to live apart from his parents with the person with whom he was living when he ceased to be of compulsory school age;
2. (b) if he dies before attaining the age of eighteen and while living as aforesaid, as respects the notice to be given under the said provisions on his death. "

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment has the effect of taking out the existing Clause 35, and putting in a new clause. We propose this because we have found that in two small respects the existing clause is defective.

Your Lordships will remember that its object is to provide for continued supervision, under the child life protection provisions of Section 7 of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939, of children who are over compulsory school age and under eighteen so long as they remain with the foster-parent with whom they were living before they reached school-leaving age. The words: but only so long as he is still living apart from his parents, if any, with the person by whom the notice was or ought to have been given can apply only to the child life protection provisions, under which notice of the placing of a child for reward has to be given to the local authority by the foster-parent. The words are inappropriate in the case of a child placed by a third party, where notice of the placing has to be given by the third party under Section 7 of the Act of 1939. The words "so long as he is still living" in the clause as drafted might be held to preclude the application of the requirement in the child life protection provisions in Section 7 of the Act of 1939 that notice is to be given by the foster-parent if the child dies. So we have substituted a redraft making it quite plain that both the child life protection provisions and the provisions of the Act of 1939 are to apply. The Amendment also makes the new provision of which I have spoken.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 35 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think we have any objection to this Amendment. It makes the matter clear, and at the same time makes a very proper extension.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36:

Miscellaneous amendments of Child Life Protection provisions.

36.—(1) Where a child one or both of whose parents are dead is being maintained by a person who is not a parent or a relative of his, and by reason of his being so maintained a guardian's allowance under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or a family allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, is payable to that person, the said person shall be created for the purposes of the provisions specified in paragraph (a) of the last but one foregoing section as having undertaken, on the date on which his application for such an allowance is granted, the nursing and maintenance of the child for reward.

3.18 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I propose here to insert an Amendment to bring this clause in line with the child life protection provisions. Those provisions do not themselves extend to any relative or legal guardian of the child who undertakes the nursing and maintenance of the child, and the Amendment, by inserting a reference to a guardian (defined in Clause 56 (1) as a legal guardian) brings Clause 36 into line with the child life protection provisions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 31, leave out (" or a ") and insert (" guardian or ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "reward" to insert: and the Minister of National Insurance shall inform the local authority of the district in which such person resides of the name and ages of the children in respect of whom the said allowances are paid.

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord O'Hagan is engaged, on your Lordships' order, upstairs, and he has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. It is a simple Amendment. The clause makes the receipt of a family allowance or guardian allowance "maintenance for reward." It fails, however, to provide any means by which a local authority can know who is receiving the allowance in the case of children. It seems to the noble Lord—and I agree— essential that the Ministry of National Insurance should inform the local authority in order that the child can have advantage of protection under the child life protection provisions. Your Lordships will remember that the Curtis Committee strongly recommended that this should be done. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid this scheme is impracticable. I shall explain why, but before I do so I should like to point out that the liability to notify the local authority of the taking of an orphan in respect of whose maintenance family allowance or guardian's allowance is payable will not necessarily rest upon the foster-parents of this small group of children, as it does on the foster-parents of children coming within the child life protection provisions. The records of the Ministry of National Insurance are not kept in a form which would enable them to identify more than a small proportion of the children in question. As the receipt of information by local authorities would be only a check—because the obligation is on the foster-parents—it seems to us unreasonable to put a requirement on the Ministry of National Insurance which would entail recasting their records for a secondary purpose, affecting only a small minority of the children with whom they are concerned. With the present shortage of man-power, that recasting would be such a formidable task that it could not possibly be contemplated. Even if it were done, I do not think it would be of great value. While realising much of the force of what the noble Lord has said, because of these practical reasons I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I am grateful for the noble and learned Viscount's reply and I appreciate the difficulty. I am sure that he, too, on his side, appreciates that where foster-parents or guardians fail in their duty is just where trouble is to be expected. I do not think my noble friend wishes to press his Amendment and I am sure he will be grateful for and interested in the reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Local Authorities]:

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in sub-section (1) after "England," to insert "Wales." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on one accepted last time we met. It is to prevent the Welsh feeling slightly snubbed by no mention being made of them in so important a measure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 15, after (" England ") insert (" and Wales ").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have received no protest from Berwick-on-Tweed, I gladly accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Children's committee]:

LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (7), to omit "also to a general" and insert "to a," and after the second "authority" to insert "not primarily concerned with the welfare of children." The noble Lord said: I put down these two Amendments wishing to strengthen the position of children's committees in local authorities. I have since been informed that the words in the Bill are a well recognised formula in local government affairs and appear in one Act and in a Bill shortly to come before your Lordships' House. On second thoughts, I think it best to leave the words as they stand in the Bill. I wished to give your Lordships that explanation of why I do not intend to move my Amendments.

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

LORD ADDINGTON

This clause deals with matters on which local authorities have rather strong feelings and on which they would have proposed considerable changes. I understand that no modifications are likely to be made. I would ask that these provisions should be treated as exceptional and not regarded as a precedent to be followed when other duties are imposed on local authorities. I realise that in this case we must have a special committee and a special officer to deal with the matter, and the committee must not be overwhelmed with other duties but must have a fair amount of scope. I hope, however, that it is an unusual provision and will not be generally followed.

With regard to the words at the end of subsection (2) which lay down that except with the consent of the Secretary of State no matters other than those specified in subsection (1) shall be dealt with by the committee, I hope that where there are other suitable functions which can be discharged by the children's committee the Secretary of State will give his consent. It may often be more convenient for the committee to deal with various other matters, particularly a committee in a small county which has little to do or where an officer may serve more than one authority. With regard to the end of the clause, it may not always be practical to delay decisions until the report of the children's committee has been considered by the council, particularly if the council does not meet very often.

LORD MORRISON

We all appreciate in this House the noble Lord's interest in and great knowledge of the work of local authorities, but it is difficult to reply to the points he raised because, as he himself has said, no Amendment appears on the Order Paper. I am afraid the only consolation I can give him is that the Bill has yet another stage in this House and then all the stages in another place; and I have no doubt that in another place, where perhaps local authorities are represented more strongly than in your Lordships' House, the points he has mentioned will not be overlooked.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39:

Modification in certain cases, of requirements of last foregoing section.

39.—(1) If, before a local authority have appointed a children's committee under the last foregoing section, the Secretary of State is satisfied that owing to special circumstances the authority can better discharge their functions under the enactments specified in sub-section (1) of that section without establishing a children's committee, he may direct that the said section shall not apply to the authority.

(2) If, at any time after three years from the commencement of this Act, a local authority which have established a children's committee satisfy the Secretary of State that owing to special circumstances the authority can better discharge their functions under the enactments specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section without a children's committee, the Secretary of State may direct that thenceforth the said section shall not apply to the authority.

(3) A direction under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section may be revoked by the Secretary of State either—

1. (a) on the application of the local authority concerned; or
2. (b) without any such application, if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that experience of the arrangements made by the authority for the discharge of their functions under the enactments specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section has shown that the arrangements are not satisfactory.

(5) In Scotland any two or more local authorities may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, agree to combine in the establishment of a children's committee for the discharge of their functions under the enactments specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, and a joint committee so established shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as the children's committee of those local authorities.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice of three Amendments to omit sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause. The noble Lord said: Perhaps it may be convenient if the House agree to deal with the next Amendment together with the two others standing in my name. The previous clause sets up a children's committee. I feel sure that upon the children's committee will rest a great deal of the work of this Bill. Clause 39 states that if, before a local authority have appointed a children's committee, the Secretary of State is satisfied that owing to special circumstances the authority can better discharge their functions without establishing a children's committee, he may direct that this clause shall not apply. I am anxious to see that all local authorities have a children's committee. I am a little uncertain of the reasons which necessitated the Secretary of State taking this power to permit local authorities to enable another committee to undertake functions which should be discharged by the children's committee.

The second subsection deals with the matter the other way round. It provides that if a committee have been appointed and if, within three years from the commencement of the Act, the local authority find that they can better discharge their functions without a children's committee, the Secretary of State may give directions accordingly. My third Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3) which says that what the Secretary of State has laid down in subsections (1) and (2) he is empowered to revoke. I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether I am right in my belief that the Government desire all local authorities to have a children's committee. In that event, what are the special circumstances which will enable the Secretary of State to agree to the non-establishment of children's committees under subsection (1), and again under subsection (2) if that children's committee has been functioning for a period of three years from the commencement of the Act? It would be of interest to noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill to know the reasons which have commended themselves to the Secretary of State to take the considerable powers, which I have briefly outlined. Accordingly, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 41, leave out subsection (1).—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is anxious to be assured that "special circumstances" really means "exceptional circumstances." With regard to the last point he mentioned, it is difficult to say what might be the "special circumstances" which would actuate the Secretary of State to make an exception in a particular case. It is always difficult to decide these things, and it is just as well that the power should be obtained. Subsections (1) and (2) give effect to that part of the Prime Minister's announcement in another place on March 24, 1947, in which he said: …it is proposed that, unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary, the local authority should, at least for a period of three years, exercise their responsibilities through a children's committee on the lines suggested in the Curtis and Clyde Reports. The policy and intention is that a children's committee should be appointed, unless in exceptional circumstances. Great importance is attached to the principle that the care of the children should be dealt with by a committee reporting direct to the council, and not by a sub-committee reporting to a parent committee. As I have already said, it is not possible to indicate now in what circumstances the Secretary of State might be prepared to dispense with the requirement to appoint a children's committee. Any case in which the issue was raised would be considered on its merits, in the light of the local circumstances.

The noble Earl concluded by saying that he was rather doubtful about putting such power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope I have assured him that, so far as the Secretary of State is concerned, it is at present his intention fully to carry out the Report. If the political circumstances of our day and generation are changed, and a Secretary of State from another political Party should take the place of the present Secretary of State, he will, I feel sure the noble Earl will agree with me, interpret and carry out the provisions of this Bill as enthusiastically and as earnestly as the present Secretary of State. I hope the noble Earl is satisfied with that firm assurance.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

May I say one word on this? I think this Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, is important. I was also hoping for some light from the noble Lord who replied as to what were these special circumstances. It is a serious thing to give power to dispense with a children's committee, and presumably the words "special circumstances" were put into the Bill with something in mind—some set of circumstances in the minds of the authorities which would justify the local authority in not setting up such a committee. It seems to me a very inadequate answer for the noble Lord to get up and say that "special circumstances" means "exceptional circumstances." With respect, I think most of us knew that before the noble Lord made that pronouncement. What I am trying to discover is what was in the minds of the responsible authorities when they introduced into this clause the words "special circumstances." In other words, what is contemplated as the type of conditions obtaining in a particular area which would justify the local authorities being excused from setting up a committee? I think we might have some answer to that not unimportant question.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think the wish on all sides of this House is to have these children's committees set up, and not to have the functions of the children's committees tacked on to a maternity committee, an education committee or some other existing committee. I believe that is in the Government's mind. Why, therefore, this "get-out" clause? What are the kind of circumstances envisaged? If the example were given of a county being too small, we might understand that. But let us know. We might be able to understand a particular example if it were given—and even better if two or three examples were given. But we cannot be satisfied with the vague remarks to which the noble Lord treated us just now.

LORD DARWEN

Perhaps I may add a word on this point. I do not feel at all satisfied that it is desirable to limit the work strictly to children's committees. After all, when we are talking about children's committees we are talking about committees for dealing with deprived children. It seems desirable to some of us that so far as possible, these children should be brought into the general child population of the district in which they are, and should not be dealt with by a separate committee. For that reason, we welcome the little "get-out" in this clause. If your Lordships will look at the Amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Beveridge, you will see that we wish even to strengthen that "get-out," because we feel it is desirable, at any rate in the early years of the working of this Act, that it should be possible for a local authority to put this special class of children under a committee dealing with other children, so that they will be brought into the general community of children under that local authority.

LORD MORRISON

I can add only this. It appears to me, without pretending to have any special knowledge, that the reply to the objections raised is that one can conceive of circumstances—exceptional circumstances—in which certain local authorities—

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Unusual circumstances.

LORD MORRISON

—unusual circumstances, in which certain local authorities may bring pressure to bear upon the Minister that, for reasons which they would submit, it was not necessary in their case to set up a children's committee. The noble Marquess asked me to give some examples. I can give the example of a very small area, in which the local authority, who know the circumstances, consider that it is not necessary for the carrying out of the functions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that they should set up a special children's committee. If the Secretary of State felt that their reasons were well-founded, and that it was, to use the noble Marquess's word, an unusual case, he would have power to grant dispensation. But without that power it would mean that in no circumstances would the Secretary of State be empowered to move at all. I can give another exceptional case. It occurs in part of a county in the United Kingdom which will have an authority, where the population is something like seven per square mile. In an area like that the local authority might make representations to the Secretary of State and say: "The population here is only seven per square mile. It is not practicable to carry out this requirement." Those are the kind of cases I have in mind. But if the noble Marquess and the noble Earl are still dissatisfied, I am quite prepared to go into the matter to see whether I can give any further reasons why the assurance which I have given should be accepted by them.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am obliged to the noble Lord for the official answer, but I am still somewhat doubtful as to the real reasons which have caused the Government to include these three subsections. If it is a case, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, that some local authorities have such a small area that it is not felt worth while to form a children's committee, that is one thing. There may be the case which the noble Lord cited himself, of an area where there is a very small population per square mile. Again, there may be areas where, since the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, very few cases for dealing with children under that Act have arisen, and it may be thought more desirable not to appoint a children's committee. Frankly, I am not happy about subsections (1) or (2). The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, said that there is a "get-out" for the local authority; in subsection (3) there is also a "get-out" for the Secretary of State. If he disagrees with what is done in subsections (1) or (2) he can right it if he so desires. In those circumstances, while I would like to think the matter over again between now and the Report stage, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 25, after (" England ") insert (" and Wales ").—(Lord Llewellin.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved, to leave out subsection (5) and insert in substitution therefor: (5) In Scotland, any two or more local authorities may agree to combine in the establishment of a children's committee for the discharge of their functions under the enactments specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, and the provisions of sections one hundred and nineteen and one hundred and twenty-one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the last foregoing section. In relation to a sub-committee of any such joint committee, the requirement of the last foregoing section that a sub-committee shall include one member of the local authority shall be construed as a requirement that a sub-committee shall include at least one member of each local authority.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary to enable two or more local authorities to combine in the establishment of a children's committee. In the subsection as drafted, the consent of the Secretary of State was required, as it was felt that this ensured that the provisions of the Children Bill would apply to combinations of local authorities. On further consideration it has been decided that the same result can be achieved by this Amendment, which will allow local authorities to combine for the purpose of setting up children's committees without the necessity of seeking the consent of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40:

The Children's Officer.

(2) A local authority shall not appoint a person to be the children's officer except after consultation with the Secretary of State, and for the purpose of such consultation shall send to the Secretary of State particulars showing the name, age, experience and qualifications of the persons from whom they propose to make a selection, and if the Secretary of State is of opinion that any of those persons is not a fit person to be the children's officer of the authority he may give directions prohibiting his appointment:

Provided that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit so to do in the case of the first appointment made under this section by any particular local authority, dispense with compliance with this subsection if the authority are proposing to appoint a person who, on the date of the passing of this Act, was performing as an officer of the authority functions corresponding to those falling to be performed after the commencement of this Act by the children's officer.

(4) The children's officer of an authority shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by that authority in any other capacity.

(5) A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the children's officer in the exercise of his functions.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to delete the proviso to subsection (2). The noble Earl said: Under Clause 40, which provides for the appointment of children's officers, the local authority are not allowed to appoint a person to be a children's officer until they have had consultations with the Secretary of State, and subsection (2) of the clause contains particulars of the information the Secretary of State requires. There is, however, a proviso to subsection (2) which says that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit…dispense with compliance with this subsection if the authority are proposing to appoint a person who, on the date of the passing of this Act, was performing as an officer of the authority functions corresponding to those falling to be performed after the commencement of this Act by the children's officer. I think that a strong point in this clause is the authority it provides for the Secretary of State himself to approve the appointment of children's officers, and I feel sure that your Lordships will be in general agreement with that provision. It may well be that some local authorities have already appointed children's officers and have, in point of fact, sought the approval of the Secretary of State to that appointment before making it. In that event, I would be quite prepared to admit that there is no necessity for them to go through again the whole procedure outlined in subsection (2). The Amendment which I have down is, therefore, of an exploratory nature, to see whether that is the intention which the Government have in mind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, leave out lines 8 to 15.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MORRISON

I think it will be easier to agree with the noble Earl on this occasion than it was on the last, because I believe we are both aiming at the same thing. I am advised that the proviso which the noble Earl wants to delete is necessary only because, although technically the designation "children's officer" has no significance until the Bill passes into law, in point of fact some people who are performing similar functions to those required in the Bill have been appointed during the past six months, in each case after informal consultation with the Secretary of State as to their suitability to fill the post of children's officer. I think the noble Earl would agree—indeed I think he said so—that in those and other cases it would be unreasonable to require the submission of a list of candidates where the Secretary of State is already satisfied as to the suitability of the person engaged on the work before the Bill passed into law. The power contained in the proviso would not be used apart from such cases, and the full provisions of the clause would have to be complied with.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am obliged to the noble Lord. All I wanted to ensure was that the Secretary of State had in fact approved the appointment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DARWEN moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "who" to insert: if he has experience and qualifications considered necessary by subsection (2) above and.

The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it is worth while pursuing this Amendment, in view of the answer which has just been given, but I would like to give the reason for putting it down. As a matter of fact, we preferred the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, but we kept ours on the Paper because we felt sure that he would not gain his, and we thought there might be some possibility of getting this smaller request. Even though a man has already been engaged in work under a local authority, even if it has been work analogous to that which he will be required to do under this Bill, we feel that it will still be desirable for the local authority appointing him to reconsider his qualifications and fitness for the work. After all, we are to some extent raising the standard of treatment of these children, and it is therefore desirable that all officers appointed under this Act should be fit for the job which they are undertaking. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 12, after (" who ") insert (" If he has experience and qualifications considered necessary by subsection (2) above and ").—(Lord Darwen.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before the noble Lord replies, may I just say this? As I understood the noble Lord who replied from the Government Benches a moment ago, the officers to whom this will apply are people who in the last six months or so, knowing that this Bill was coming into operation, had their names submitted by local authorities to the Home Office and their appointments approved. If that is the case, it seems unnecessary to go through all the formula again. It seems to me—and probably also to most of your Lordships—that an ounce of practice in this kind of work is worth a ton of theory, and that the people who will do good work as children's officers are not people who have some degree in some school, but people who have actually done work on the spot and made a success of it. If they have been doing this work for six months and they come up for approval by the local authority, the local authority will know whether they are doing well. It seems to me that if the authority come to the conclusion that they are, there is no reason whatever why their names should be referred back to the Home Office.

LORD MORRISON

I would add, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said so excellently, only that it would be invidious in the case of officers—who, as I have explained, have been appointed within the last six months, after examination by the Secretary of State and with the approval of the Secretary of State—to put them now in competition with other people. Therefore, I think the noble Lord will realise that the Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD DARWEN

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (5): including sufficient clerical assistance to enable the officer frequently to visit institutions and children under his care

The noble Lord said: I admit quite frankly to your Lordships that it may not be necessary to include this Amendment in the Bill. As your Lordships will see under subsection (5): A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the children's officer in the exercise of his functions. What I intend by my Amendment is really to dot the i's and cross the t's. I believe it is the intention of everybody who has taken part in the discussions on this Bill in this House, and who takes an interest in it, that the children's officer shall be a field officer, rather than a person tied to a desk in a municipal building. It may be that it would be wrong to put these words in the Bill; but I assume that some advisory circular will go out to local authorities from the Home Office as soon as this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. If in that circular the attention of local authorities could be drawn to the fact that these officers' main duties, as envisaged by the Government, are to be of a "field" variety, rather than form filling, my point would be entirely met. I am quite certain that that is what everybody wishes—that these officers should be out and about. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me whether anything of this nature could be included in the circular which I assume will be issued. If so, I for one shall be quite satisfied.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 26, at end insert (" including sufficient clerical assistance to enable the officer frequently to visit institutions and children under his care. ")—(Lord Llewellin.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I suggest for the consideration of my noble friend Lord Llewellin that it might suit his wishes if, instead of moving the present Amendment, he were to substitute in subsection (5) for the words "adequate staff," "adequate clerical and other staff for the assistance of the children's officer "? I rather sympathise with what the noble Lord has in mind, but it is for him to say whether it suits him to do what I suggest. Apparently he is a little nervous about his present Amendment, which may go a little beyond what he intends.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It would not entirely meet my wishes. I would really rather have it in a circular.

LORD MORRISON

From my fairly lengthy experience of local government work, I am bound to say that I could not agree more with the noble Lord in this matter. If the children's officer tries to do his job from his office, he will, to my mind, be a complete failure. The problems he will have to handle will necessitate his close and personal knowledge of the child, the home, the parents (if any), and the institution. The Bill already requires the local authority to secure adequate staff to assist the children's officer, and I think this is sufficient. It will be the policy of the Secretary of State to secure subordinate staff sufficient for all purposes, and to see that the children's officers shall be able to deal with every aspect of their work. May I add that my experience, for what it is worth, is that when a children's officer of a local authority is blamed—and it does sometimes happen—for stopping in his office doing clerical work instead of going out and about, the real reason has not been any lack of clerical assistance, but that he prefers the comfort of his office? These, of course, are exceptional cases. Officers of local authorities generally do their work efficiently and well, and the local authorities make proper provision for their doing so.

I hope the noble Lord will agree to leave the Secretary of State to enforce the policy, and if in the course of time the Secretary of State is replaced by someone else I am sure that on this subject they will be equally agreed. The noble Lord says he would be satisfied if a circular were sent out to local authorities on the lines that he has suggested. With that suggestion I wholeheartedly agree. I would strongly recommend this, because there is no doubt that it is necessary for these officers to be out and about in personal contact with their work.

LORD CALVERLEY

I think this debate has been most helpful, because it has brought out the fact that these officers are more useful getting out and about than sitting in an office, and also because I believe it was the question of an officer who was supposed to be getting around but who in fact was sitting in his office which was responsible for the setting up of the Curtis Committee. My own authority have had much success, and I believe that is largely due to the fact that these officers have been getting round. I believe the debate will prove more valuable than any Amendment which we might put down.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think we are all absolutely at one as to what we want. The noble Lord has told us what is the Secretary of State's policy, but he will agree that it is not much good confining that policy to the Home Office; in some way it will have to be circulated to local authorities. What I am suggesting is that the circular which will presumably be going out on this Bill when it becomes law should have a phrase drawing the attention of local authorities to the fact that these officers should be out and about the place, getting to know personally the children, the institutions and so forth. I should have liked an assurance to that effect.

LORD MORRISON

I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that I have now received authority to say that a circular to this effect will be issued.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord, and on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 agreed to.

CLAUSE 41 [Powers of Secretary of State with respect to functions of local authorities]:

3.58 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to delete "and control." The noble Lord said: This point follows on one we discussed on Clause 15 of the Bill. My Amendment asks that the functions of the Secretary of State shall be confined to giving general directions and guidance to local authorities, and that it shall be left to them to carry out the details in their own way. Therefore I suggest that the words "and control" are redundant. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 37, leave out (" and control ").—(Lord Addington.)

LORD MORRISON

I am glad to be able to inform the noble Lord that I am prepared to accept his Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 [Advisory Council on Child Care]:

LORD MORRISON moved to delete subsection (6) and to insert as a new clause:

" Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland.

43.—(1) There shall be a separate Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland, for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State on matters connected with the discharge of his functions under this Act, Parts I, V and VI of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, and the Adoption of Children Act, 1939, and the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of the last foregoing section shall apply accordingly.

(2) The Secretary of State may require the Advisory Council to appoint, and the council with the approval of the Secretary of State shall have power to appoint, committees to deal with any matter mentioned in the last foregoing subsection.

(3) Any committee appointed under the last foregoing subsection shall include such persons as may be nominated by the Secretary of State, being persons, other than members of the council, having special knowledge or experience of the subject with which the committee is required to deal.

(4) A report of any such committee shall be submitted to the Secretary of State by the council, who may make such comments thereon as they think fit.

(5) The Secretary of State may make out of moneys provided by Parliament such payments to the members of the said council and to the members of any committees appointed under the provisions of this section, in respect of travelling, subsistence and other expenses as be may with the consent of the Treasury determine "

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the proposed new clause. Subsection (1) of Clause 42 provides for the setting up in England and Wales of an Advisory Council on Child Care, and subsection (6) provides for the appointment of a similar Council in Scotland. This Amendment introduces a new Clause 43, to take the place of subsection (6) of Clause 42, which on examination was found to be somewhat indefinite. It provides in subsection (3) for the appointment of nominated members, being persons other than members of the Council, and it also provides for the payment of the expenses of members of the Council and for the payment of expenses of members of committees of the Council. The Amendment introduces two new subsections, (2) and (4), providing for the appointment of committees of the Council and for the submission of the reports of such committees through the Council to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 21, leave cut subsection (6) and insert the said clause.—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I can see that there is a great improvement in putting in something definite about the Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland, rather than leaving it vague, as it was in subsection (6). But why must we always have things different between Scotland and England? When one looks at the new clause, one sees that it incorporates only subsections (2) and (4), and leaves out subsection (3). In England, the Secretary of State will appoint the persons to be chairman and secretary of the said Council. Who will do it in Scotland?—because subsection (3) has obviously been left out purposely. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether in Scotland the Advisory Council are allowed to appoint their own chairman and their own secretary, or what happens. That is my first point.

My second point is this. There is no provision for the Council for England and Wales to appoint committees or for the payment of expenses of committees. Yet here is an express provision to allow committees to be set up in Scotland and for their members to be paid their out-of-pocket expenses. It means that, what ever may have been done before, the Advisory Council for England and Wales are now to be precluded from setting up any committees, because provision is specifically made for Scotland to do so but not for them. Why is there that difference? These differences may be small but, even if they are small, why should they exist at all? Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to tell us why. We are only on the Committee stage of the Bill, and those words might be looked at before we reach the next stage, because, although there is good reason for differences between the two countries in some cases—for example where the basis of law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales—I do not see that the children in the two countries are much different. Perhaps the noble Lord, if he has not the explanation available now, will tell us whether these points can he considered.

LORD SALTOUN

There is a small point which does make Scotland a little different. As the noble Lord knows, we tend rather to rely more on the individual and less on the institution in Scotland. That brings me to a point in connection with this matter which I should like to ask my noble friend to bear in mind. In the few great cities of Scotland, there are incorporations which are not exactly charitable but which do do a great deal of work amongst both old people and children. There are incorporations formed by the trade houses of the cities of Scotland. These people perform regularly, patiently and expertly the task of visiting. If steps are taken in any regulations made on this subject to make use of the man-power which these incorporations supply and the expert knowledge which they possess, I feel that it will lighten the task of the care of children in Scotland.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, commenced by asking: Why must we do things differently in Scotland from England? By putting that question, he certainly is starting something, as I expect he realises! It is not so much that we do things differently, but we do them in a different way. The noble Lord then went on to ask me why subsection (3) had been left out. As a matter of fact, it has not been left out. The new clause does not leave out subsection (3): it says: "subsections (2) to (4)" which includes subsection (3).

LORD LLEWELLIN

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I made a bad point there. I had read the clause rather hurriedly as "(2) and (4)." I yield that point completely. I confess myself at fault.

LORD MORRISON

In Scotland, instead of putting "(2), (3) and (4)," they put "(2) to (4)." I would also point out that payment for committees is covered in England as well as in Scotland. It is contemplated that the Council will appoint committees to consider and report on certain matters, particularly the question of training and boarding out persons, and house-mothers. The provisions of this subsection follow the provision for the appointment of committees and submission of reports applicable to the Advisory Council on Education under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. If I have not completely answered the noble Lord's points and he cares to give me notice, I am prepared on the next stage of the Bill to give a full explanation as to the differences between Scotland and England.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord has certainly fully answered me on the first point. On the second point, would he again inquire (because it may have been overlooked) why there is the provision in regard to the Advisory Council for Scotland having committees, and why there is no such provision in the case of the Council for England. I do not mind the Advisory Council having committees, but is it intentional that the English Advisory Council should not have them? That is what I want to know.

LORD MORRISON

I will see that an answer on that point is given to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

May I ask a question of which I really should have given the noble Lord notice? In the course of the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I raised a point on subsection (2) of this clause, about the persons who would be sitting on the Advisory Council on Child Care. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that there would be a number of people drawn from the associations who would deal with child care in all its forms. I am interested to know whether the noble Lord can give us any statement this afternoon as to the number of persons who are to sit on this Council. On Second Reading I stated that I did not want to see this Council packed with a large body of persons until it became unwieldy or top-heavy. If the noble Lord cannot reply now, would he make some statement at the next stage of the Bill?

LORD ADDINGTON

May I have an assurance that some persons will be appointed to this Council to represent the interests of the local authorities who are so much concerned? We have had assurances about the voluntary associations. The noble Lord does not want to add any specific words to the Bill, but I feel that local authorities should have some representatives on the Council.

LORD MORRISON

Yes, I will endeavour to answer those points at the next stage.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.

4.10 p.m.

Clause 45:

Grants to local authorities.

45.—(1) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to a local authority in respect of expenditure incurred by them for the purpose of the discharge of their functions under any of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of Section thirty-eight of this Act, other than expenses incurred as managers of an approved school or in respect of children sent to an approved school or in respect of remand homes,—

1. (a) such sums not exceeding fifty per cent. of the expenditure as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury direct, and subject to such conditions as he may with the like approval determine;
2. (b) such additional sums as he may with the like consent direct as representing the share appropriate to the local authority of sums received under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, as the case may be, as to contributions towards expenses, and paid over to the Secretary of State, other than such sums so paid over which were received in respect of children sent to approved schools,

subject however to the deduction of an amount equal to such proportion not exceeding fifty per cent. as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine of so much of the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the two last foregoing sections as he may with the like consent allocate to that authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 18, leave out (" approval ") and insert (" consent ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

The next Amendment concerns consultation. I believe that the arrangement laid down in subsection (1), by which the sums spent on services are to be deducted from the grants paid to local authorities, is without precedent. In these matters, particularly training, there is a joint interest and there should, so far as possible, be a joint undertaking and a joint endeavour. All through this Bill and elsewhere there should be the utmost co-operation and consultation with all concerned. I very much hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to indicate that at any rate there will be joint consultation and a joint body which can devise and plan these services, and obtain some say in how the charges are to be allotted or deducted from the different grants to local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 32, after (" may ") insert (" after consultation with the local authority and ").—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not sure the noble Lord has moved the Amendment quite in the form he wants, because it occurs to me that the Amendment, as drafted, relates to consultation about the proportion of the Secretary of State's expenditure which is to be deducted from the grant, and that is a matter of secondary importance to local authorities. Their effective interest will be in the amount by which the grant is to be reduced below 50 per cent., rather than the proportion that this amount bears to the Secretary of State's total expenditure. The intent on of the Secretary of State is that, just as the gross rate of grant on local authority's expenditure will be 50 per cent., so the local authority should contribute 50 per cent. of his expenditure on training in child care and in making grants to voluntary homes. It will be, if I may use the expression, on a "fifty-fifty" basis. What the noble Lord wants—and I can probably satisfy him—is some assurance that the local authority associations concerned will be consulted about expenditure which will determine the rate of deduction from the grant payable to those authorities, and that assurance I can give him.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I do not know whether he thinks it is desirable that some different words should be put down, or whether he desires me to be content with that assurance at this stage?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I thought that would be enough.

LORD ADDINGTON

I would emphasise consultation throughout and the necessity for a joint service, but for the present I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON

The next Amendment deals with a somewhat similar point. Your Lordships will see that there are two sets of expenditure which come under this deduction. There are the grants for training in child care, and there are the grants for voluntary associations. They are not quite of equal importance, and some associations strongly object to local authorities being forced to contribute towards the cost of improvements in voluntary homes. They do not quite understand why money raised out of the local rates should be directed towards the assistance of voluntary homes when the local authorities themselves have no say either in the homes to be assisted, or in the amount of assistance, or the purpose for which the money will be expended. I should like to know what is the principle and why this "fifty-fifty" basis should be on the expenditure of local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 34, leave out (" the two last foregoing sections ") and insert (" section forty-three of this Act ").—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The significance of this Amendment is this. The Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to recover from local authorities up to 50 per cent. of his expenditure on training in child welfare under Clause 43, but none of his expenditure in making grants under Clause 44 (1). He makes grants under Clause 44 (1), in exceptional circumstances, to bring a voluntary home up to standard. Why should not the partnership which is existing between the Minister and the local authority apply to such a case as that? It seems to me there is every reason why it should, for if, owing to lack of funds, a voluntary association were not able to carry out exceptional expenditure, such as structural repairs or something of that sort, what would happen? That place would be no longer a fit place to receive children, and the children would fall upon the local authority. So the local authority receive a direct benefit from the voluntary associations being kept up to the mark. The voluntary associations then, of course, have the responsibility of looking after the children. Consider, for a moment, the matter from the converse point of view also. The local authority may make grants to voluntary associations and, if a local authority make a grant to a voluntary association, the Minister has to pay half the grant. Equally, why should not the local authority pay half the grant when the Minister makes a grant? For that reason I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. In those circumstances, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47:

Accounts of councils of county boroughs.

47.—(1) The council of every county borough shall keep accounts of the sums received and expended by them in the exercise of their functions under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1) of Section thirty-eight of this Act, other than sums received or expended by them as managers of an approved school or in respect of children sent to an approved school or in respect of remand homes.

(2) The accounts to be kept under this section shall be made up and audited in like manner as the accounts of a county council and shall be kept separately from the other accounts of the council of the county borough.

(3) The enactments relating to the audit of accounts by a district auditor and to the matters incidental to such audit and consequential thereon shall have effect in relation to the accounts which the council of a county borough are required to keep under this section as they have effect in relation to the accounts of a county council.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 1, at end insert (" separate ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This and the other Amendment of the Lord Chancellor go together, do they not?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD LLEWELLIN

And, taking them together, it is a purely drafting matter?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved to omit subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: This is a question of audit. As your Lordships know, the municipal corporations have certain arrangements and privileges regarding the audit of their accounts. The accounts of county borough councils are audited by professional accountants of considerable standing. It is not readily to be understood why, in a Bill like this, the occasion should be taken to withdraw from these senior local authorities privileges which have already been given to them by Statute. I would suggest that these firms of accountants might submit to the Secretary of State a special report on the accounts with which we are concerned here, as well as submitting the normal report to the council of the county borough. We seem to be putting a great number of extra duties on the district auditors, and considerable delay might be caused. It is suggested, therefore, that there might be some advantage in not adding to the number of accounts with which these district auditors have to deal in the course of their duties. I feel strongly that privileges which have been given by Parliament should not be whittled away, perhaps unnecessarily, on an occasion such as this.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a complicated question. The complication that arises here is this. There is no general provision applying to the accounts of county borough councils such as is contained in Part X of the Local Government Act, 1933, in relation to county councils. Clearly, wherever new duties have been imposed on county borough councils it has been owing to the stipulation that they shall apply the principles of the county councils in regard to audit. May I give some examples? I would refer the Committee to Section 119 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, Section 91 of the Education Act, 1944, and Clause 57 of the National Assistance Bill. All those prescribe that the accounts of the councils of county boroughs, in relation to their functions under the measure, are to be kept, made up and audited in the same way as the accounts of county councils, and are to be kept separately from their other accounts. That, therefore, is common form.

This is especially appropriate where, as under this Bill, local authority expenditure in respect of the functions is to be grant-aided from Exchequer funds. There are 146 county and county borough councils in England and Wales; the 63 county councils are subject to district audit by virtue of the provisions of the local Government Act, while nine of the 83 county borough councils have had applied to them, or have adopted, district audit. So there remain 74 country borough councils not at present subject to district audit. But certain of their accounts, including public assistance and education accounts (to which expenditure in respect of children deprived of normal life is at present chargeable) are subject to district audit. The effect of the Amendment would, therefore, be to place the 74 county borough councils in a different position from that of all other local authorities under the Bill, by allowing them to have professional audit in respect of expenditure which is at present subject to district audit. For these reasons, I feel that we are following a well-established precedent, and I cannot see my way to depart from it.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am bound to say that I regret the answer which has been given by the noble and learned Viscount. It may be, as he says, that this is common form, but I think it is regrettable that privileges should be gradually taken away. In the circumstances I see no point in pressing my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 10, leave out from (" council ") to the end of line 11.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended agreed to.

Clause 48:

Appointment of guardians.

48. In Section four of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2):—

" (2A) Where an infant has no parent, no guardian of the person, and no other person having parental rights with respect to him, the court, on the application of any person, may if it thinks fit appoint the applicant to be the guardian of the infant. "

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in the proposed new subsection (2A), after "person," where that word occurs a third time, to insert "or voluntary organisations." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. Its aim is mainly to draw attention to the fact that in some cases the voluntary organisation who have had charge of a child, when it has no guardian or no parent, and there is no other person having parental rights, may well be the kind of body to which a court might wish to entrust the child. There are these voluntary organisations looking after the upbringing of these neglected children, and it may well be, I suggest, that they ought to be added to the clause, so as to give power to a court to make them guardians or otherwise of a child in any case where the court may see fit so to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 26, after (" person ") insert (" or voluntary organisations ").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment would make this part of the clause read as follows: …. the court, on the application of any person or voluntary organisations, may, if it thinks fit appoint the applicant to be the guardian of the infant. We have had to consider carefully whether it is desirable to have a corporation—a voluntary association or any other form of corporation—as the guardian of a child. We have come to the conclusion that it is not desirable, because such bodies in our view would be much too impersonal to act as guardians. After all, what is wanted for the purposes of a guardian is some individual, some human being, who will get to know the child and exercise proper guardianship. If you appoint some corporation or voluntary association you may have officers—and, I agree, they may be very efficient officers—to look after the child. But all kinds of changes of officers take place. There would be no guarantee of the necessary continuity. We do not think it is suitable to have an impersonal body as a guardian. By all means, if it is desired, have an officer, a named individual, who may happen to be the officer of a voluntary association, appointed for the purpose—but have an individual.

We feel that it would be undesirable to have a vague amorphous body, such as a voluntary association may be, as guardian. The necessary continuity, we feel, can be preserved only by having individuals to discharge this duty; it cannot be secured by having associations. Associations, after all, can act only through agents, and they may have different agents at different times. What we contemplate is that a person shall go to the court to make application—no doubt in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he will go to the court—so that he can be looked at and his qualities appraised. The court would be able to size him up, and if they thought him a fit and proper person, they would entrust the child to his care. If they thought he was not a fit and proper person they would not do so. If you had voluntary associations (for many of which I have the highest possible regard) exercising this function, you might well lose that continuity of personal touch which is essential if the proper relation between guardian and child is to be satisfactorily maintained. On these grounds we cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think there is a lot in what the noble and learned Viscount says. No doubt it would be difficult to select which kind of voluntary organisation should apply in these cases. The secretary or matron of a hospital might, in appropriate cases, by themselves or by their organisations, apply for the care of the child. And the child would then automatically go into the institution of which the person who made the application had the charge. I realise that it might raise difficulties to place the child in the charge of what the Lord Chancellor has called an amorphous body—although I must say that it slightly amused me to hear the Lord Chancellor, of all people, voicing those sentiments, because there have for a large number of years been wards in Chancery. Lord Chancellors come and go. All Judges in the Chancery Court deal with them on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, and I do not call them "amorphous bodies."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? Every ward in Chancery is given in charge of a particular Judge. It is true that all Judges represent me, but I never interfere between a particular Judge and a particular ward; and so long as he remains a Judge in Chancery, he looks after that child.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Then we come down to this point: that wards in Chancery have these highly respectable but somewhat elderly gentlemen looking after them until one dies and another is appointed. However, that was a point in passing. I think on this matter the Lord Chancellor is right, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [Provisions as to places of safety]:

LORD ADDINGTON moved to substitute "shall" for "may" in subsection (3). The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) provides that where a child is removed to a place of safety the local authority within whose area the child was immediately before its removal "may" defray the expenses of maintenance. It is considered that this discretion ought to be obligatory. I hope that this Amendment may be accepted or that we may get an explanation of the existing words.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 45, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, for which I have some sympathy, would be to require local authorities in whose areas children were prior to removal to defray expenses in all cases. The Amendment is probably designed to avoid disputes between local authorities by fixing responsibility for maintenance where children are removed from the area of one local authority to a place of safety in another area. From that point of view I think the Amendment has much to commend it, but it would also have the effect of requiring payment to be made by the local authority where no payment would otherwise be required, as, for instance, in the case of a child placed in a voluntary home as a place of safety, the managers of which were willing themselves to maintain it. But it may be possible to redraft the Amendment to avoid this difficulty. If the noble Lord will withdraw it now, I will see what I can do between now and Report stage to redraft it—he will collaborate with me in doing so, I am sure—and we will deal with the matter again later.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am grateful for the reply, and in the circumstances will certainly withdraw my Amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Amendment of Family Allowances Act, 1945, ss. 11 and 26]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Llewellin.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 14, after (" England ") insert (" and Wales ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 [Enforcement of orders for payment of money under Guardianship of Infants Acts]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "shall be enforceable" and to insert "may be enforced, varied or invoked in like manner." The noble and learned Viscount said: This and the next Amendment are necessary to provide that an order for the payment of money under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, may not only be enforced, but may also be varied or revoked in the same way as an affiliation order. It will apply to guardianship orders under the provisions of Regulations 17B, C and D of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940, which have been made permanent. The purpose of these Regulations is to enable proceedings for enforcement and variation of orders to be taken in the most convenient court. Provision is made for the complaint to be heard by the court within whose jurisdiction the father resides, or, in the case of an application to vary or revive the order, by the court where either the mother or father resides, in lieu of the court which made the original order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 23, leave cut (" shall be enforceable ") and insert the slid new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 24, leave out (" the enforcement of ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52:

Provisions as to entry and inspection.

(3) Any person authorised in that behalf by a local authority may enter any voluntary home in the area of the authority for the purpose of visiting the children in the home; and any person authorised in that behalf by a local authority may enter any voluntary home outside the area of the authority for the purpose of visiting children in the home who are in the care of the authority under Section one of this Act or are for the time being committed to the care of the authority as a fit person by an order of any court under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937.

4.37 p.m.

LORD DARWEN moved, in subsection (3), after "home," where that word occurs a second time, to insert: and with the consent of the Secretary of State may withdraw an individual child who has no effective parent or guardian, from a voluntary home and transfer him to the care of the local authority.

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which I attach more importance than to any other I have moved. At the same time I recognise that it presents difficulties, and therefore I must throw myself on the sympathy of the Government. We feel that one great defect of the Bill is that it treats children very much in the mass and very little as individuals. Without wishing to appear too critical of voluntary homes, we feel that children under local authorities will, as a general rule, have better opportunities in some ways than children under voluntary homes. For instance, we feel that the great advantages of the 1944 Education Act will be open to children in local authority homes and not as freely open to children in the voluntary homes. Apart altogether from points of that kind, there is a fundamental necessity to treat children as individuals. We all know cases where a boy has not fitted in well at a particular school but, when moved to another school, he has fitted in perfectly. A particular institution may suit one individual and not suit another. It is important to give full consideration to the needs of individual children and to give children who show special possibilities, gifts and capacities full opportunities for education right up to university level. It is important that it should be possible in some way or another for a local authority to take a child out of a voluntary home, probably always with the home's consent and often with the home's initiative, and give that child all the advantages it can get from a different environment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 15, after (" home ") insert the said words.—(Lord Darwen.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I regret that I cannot meet the noble Lord on this matter. My instructions are to oppose this Amendment. He has put his case in a most eloquent way and I have no doubt that what he has said will be considered by my right honourable friend. I think there are great difficulties in carrying out this proposal. The whole policy of His Majesty's Government in this Bill is to work through these two different systems: the voluntary association system, and the local authority system. Of course, the local authority have the right to go and inspect the children in the voluntary associations, but if it were thought that the local authority might go round to the voluntary homes and, as it were, snatch their children away from them (I agree that the consent of the Secretary of State has to be obtained), it would make for ill-feeling and uncertainty. I do not think it would really square with our policy if we empowered the Secretary of State, at the request of the local authority, to take away from a voluntary association children in their care.

Of course, it must be admitted that some children in the care of voluntary associations may be unsuitably placed; but it is also true that some children in the care of local authorities may be unsuitably placed. So far as the children provided for under the Bill are concerned, I think the remedy will be to secure, so far as it is humanly possible to secure it, a higher standard of care everywhere, and to see that full use is made of the statutory and other services which are available to assist children who are in need of special care or treatment. One other class of children occurs to my mind: those children who obviously have special gifts along particular lines. Those children, also, should be carefully considered.

Therefore, whilst, for my own part, I should be reluctant to sec given any such power as is proposed in the Amendment, yet I should be very willing to think that, as a matter of machinery and practice, the Home Secretary or the local authorities would discuss with the voluntary associations cases of individual children. I feel satisfied that we are much more likely to get effective results if it is done by voluntary and friendly discussion, rather than if there is a statutory right to take children away, which I think will breed suspicion and ill feeling. I believe that the interests which the noble Lord has at heart (in which I sympathise with him completely) will be better served by not giving power to the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to take children out of voluntary homes. It is for that reason that I must resist this Amendment.

LORD DARWEN

I feel that to have brought forth such a sympathetic and helpful reply from the noble and learned Viscount has made putting down the Amendment well worth while. I thank him for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 agreed to.

4.46 p.m.

Clause 53 [Prosecution of offences]:

EARL FORTESCUE

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 33, after (" England ") insert (" or Wales ").—(Earl Fortescue.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment deals with a Scottish legal point. In Scotland it is the general practice for proceedings for offences under Common or Statute Law to be initiated by the Procurator Fiscal. Section 102 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, provides that a local authority may institute proceedings for any offence under Sections 12 to 15 and Section 22 of that Act, but proceedings have not, in fact, been taken for many years. It is considered desirable that proceedings under the above-named sections should follow the general Scottish practice and in all cases be taken in future by the Procurator Fiscal. This will create no hardship on the local authorities concerned, since they will in future, as in practice they do at present, report to the Procurator Fiscal offences under these sections which come to their notice. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 31, line 34, at end insert: (" (2) Subsection (5) of section, twenty-three and subsection (1) of section one hundred and two of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, shall cease to have effect. ")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Regulations and orders]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment relates to an error which has been made. We used the words "Secretary of State," regardless of the fact that regulations—for instance, under Clause 21—have to be made jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Education. That is why we started this clause with the words, "The Minister," which is right. I propose to leave out the words, "on the Secretary of Slate." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 23, leave out (" on the Secretary of State ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 [Interpretation]:

EARL FORTESCUE

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, I beg to move the next two consequential Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 32, line 38, after (" England ") insert (" and Wales ");

Page 32,line 42, after (" England ") insert ("or Wales").—(Earl Fortescue.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.

First Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:

LORD MORRISON

The first Amendment on the First Schedule relates to only a small point. Subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule provides that, where immediately before the com mencement of the Bill a local authority were recovering from another authority the cost of the relief of a child maintained under the Poor Law, the liability of the other authority will continue under Clause 1(4) of the Bill. This Amendment provides for the continuation of this liability where the first-mentioned local authority were entitled to recover the cost of relief, as well as when recovery was actually being made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 17, leave out from (" Act ") to (" from ") in line 18 and insert (" the cost of the relief referred to in the last foregoing sub-paragraph was recoverable by the local authority therein referred to. ")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is another small point. The Bill provides for new boarding out regulations. This and the next Amendment are needed to cover the period before the new regulations can be made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 35, after (" if ") insert (" (a) ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 36, after (" Act ") insert: and (b) they had been made so as to apply to children in the care of a local authority under section one of this Act in like manner as to children committed to the care of a local authority or educational authority as a fit person. ")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 35, at beginning insert ("Paragraph (a) of ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 36, leave out from (" 1933 ") to end of line 37 and insert (" which contains ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is necessary because of the abolition of the Poor Law authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 36, line 47, at end insert: (3) Paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of Section ninety-four of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937 (which contains special provisions as to contributions by poor law authorities to the expenses of approved schools in Scotland) shall cease to have effect, and for the purposes of subsection (1) of the said Section ninety-four (by which the education authority named in an approved school order is required to make contributions to the said expenses) where no education authority has been named in the approved school order the education authority of the area which comprises the area of the poor law authority by whom the application was made shall be deemed to have been so named. "—(Lord Morrison).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 7, leave out (" these ") and insert (" those ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next five Amendments are drafting Amendments to repair the omission to provide in paragraph 9 of the First Schedule for the application of the transitional provisions contained therein. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 37,line 12, after ("thirty-four") insert ("or thirty-six ");

Page 37,line 19, after (" thirty-four ") insert ("or thirty-six ");

Page 37,line 23, leave out (" from ") and insert (" after ");

Page 37,line 29, after (" thirty-four ") insert (" or thirty-six ");

Page 37,line 38, after ("thirty-four") insert (" or thirty-six ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

With reference to the next Amendment, I may explain that the child life protection provisions prohibit a foster-child being kept by any person from whose care a foster-child has already been removed, or in premises which are dangerous or insanitary, or by any person who has been convicted of an offence. When the Act comes into operation there may be a number of children who are kept by persons or in premises of the kind I have mentioned. Subparagraph (4) of paragraph 9 allows in such cases a period of grace of seven days during which the consent of the local authority must be applied for. The Amendment allows a further period of grace to be given by the local authority to enable foster-parents to make suitable alternative arrangements for the child. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 47, at end insert (" or after the expiration of such longer period as the welfare authority or local authority may allow ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 8, after (" thirty-four ") insert (" or thirty-six ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 20, leave out (" from ") and insert (" after ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The National Assistance Bill provides that any land which immediately before the provisions of the Bill came into operation was held by a local authority for the purposes of the Poor Law (including Poor Law children's homes) will be deemed to have been appropriated for such of the purposes of the National Assistance Bill as the authority may determine. This Amendment is necessary to exclude from the operation of this provision children's homes, provided under the Poor Law, which will fall to foe appropriated for the purposes of the Children Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 44, at end add (" and so much of the said transitional provisions as relates to the vesting of land shall not apply to any land which before the commencement of this Act is appropriated for the purposes of a home to be provided under Part II thereof ").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think this is quite right, but I believe it goes further than the noble Lord has said. Even if it is land to be appropriated for a home not yet built, so long as it was purchased with the idea of building a home on it, it will not vest back, in accordance with the new Bill which will shortly come before us.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

4.54 p.m.

Second Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Under the existing law it is frequently necessary to determine where a child sent to an approved school is residing. It is necessary because one has to determine which of the two local authorities are to be liable for contributions in respect of him. Under the existing law, certain types of residence are disregarded; for instance, where the child is boarded out is obviously an artificial residence. Although all boarding out in future will be done under the provisions of this Bill, the existing system will have to go on for some time, and it will be necessary to consider which of the two local authorities should pay. Therefore, we are setting up our own code as to what is to be disregarded in determining residence. It will make it rather wider than before. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 5, leave out from (" subsection (2) ") to end of line 7 and insert (" for the words from ' by ' to committed ' there shall be substituted the words ' the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or Part II of the Children Act, 1948, by a local authority or educational authority ' ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 26, leave out from (" subsection (6) ") to end of line 28 and insert (" for the words from ' by ' to ' committed ' there shall be substituted the words the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or Part II of the Children Act, 1948, by a local authority or education authority ' ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment puts right an odd misprint. The words printed are "to stretch" where it should have been "restricts." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 36, leave out (" to stretch ") and insert (" restricts ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I rather like the words "to stretch," but I think the Lord Chancellor is right to take them out and put in the correct words.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It prevents the Bill removing the existing power of a county or a county borough council to prosecute for offences under the child life protection provisions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 47, at end insert (" and for any offence under the provisions relating to child life protection of Part VII of the Public Health Act, 1936, and of Part XIII of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936 ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment applicable to Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 7, leave out (" in subsection (1) ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next is also a drafting Amendment applicable to Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 24, leave out (" available ") and insert (" the availability of ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This drafting Amendment is necessary because Poor Law authorities will cease to exist on the passing of the National Assistance Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 29, after (" seventy-four ") insert (" in subsection (2) ") the words (" on the application of a poor law authority in their capacity as such or made ") shall be omitted.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 29, leave out from (" proviso (a) ") to the end of line 32, and insert (" to that subsection for the words from ' by ' to ' committed ' there shall be substituted the words ' the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, or Part II of the Children Act, 1948, by a local authority or education authority ' ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This, too, is a Scottish Amendment. As the local authority, and not the education authority, will in future be the authority to whom children will be committed by the court, it is necessary to provide that children who run away shall be returned to such person as the local authority may direct. This Amendment makes such provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 43, after (" as a fit person ") insert (" for the words ' an education authority ' where the expression last occurs, there shall be substituted the words ' a local authority' ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 44, leave out (" committed ") and insert (" or with whom ").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to ask whether this reads quite right. I refer to page 41, line 43, where it says …to whose care he has been committed as a fit person. Ought we not to leave in the word "committed"?

LORD MORRISON

My information was that the Amendment was designed to correct an error made in drafting.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

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

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 7, after (" (3) ") insert (" for the words ' an education authority ' where the expression first occurs, there shall be substituted the words ' a local authority ' ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 5, subsection (2), by which temporary residence is disregarded for the purpose of determining the place of residence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 28, leave out from (" subsection (5) ") to end of line 30 and insert (" for the words from ' by ' to ' committed ' there shall be substituted the words ' the Poor Law Act, 1930, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, or Part II of the Children Act, 1948, by a local authority or education authority ' ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 33, leave out the first (" a ") and insert (" any ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is consequential on the Amendments already made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 41, leave out (" Section sixteen ") and insert (" In Section sixteen, in subsection (2), in the definition of ' welfare authority ' after the word ' purposes ' there shall be inserted the words ' of the provisions relating to child life protection '; subsection (3) ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is necessary to repeal references, in subsections (2), (3) and (7) of Section 70 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, to Poor Law Authorities, which will cease to exist as from the date of the coming into operation of the provisions of this Bill and the National Assistance Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 8, column 3, at beginning insert (" In Section seventy, in subsection (2), the words ' made on the application of a poor law authority in their capacity as such or ', in subsection (3) the words ' or poor law ' and in subsection (7) the words from the beginning of the subsection to ' and ' ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This next Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 26. The Committee will remember that we reinstated the provisions of Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, relating to the variation of existing affiliation orders in favour of local authorities and private fit persons. Subsection (3) of Section 88 will be repealed, since it will be no longer applicable as a result of the amendment of Section 86 by Clause 24. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 10, column 3, leave out (" Section eighty-eight ") and insert (" in Section eighty-eight, "subsection (3)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment rectifies an error in the Third Schedule. It is not intended to repeal the whole of subsection (5) of Section 90 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, but only those provisions of the subsection referring to approved school orders made; on the application of Poor Law authorities, who will cease to exist as from the date of the coming into operation of the provisions of this Bill and the National Assistance Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 12, column 3 leave out (" subsection (3) ") and insert (" in subsection (5), paragraph (a), and the words from ' but in the first ' to the end of the subsection ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential on our reinstatement of the provisions of Section 88 of the Children and Young Persons Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 17, column 3, leave out from (" paragraph (a) ") to end of line 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert: (" In Section twenty-three, subsection (5); in Section forty-three in subsection (2) the words ' themselves charge any child or young person with any offence, or '; in Section seventy-four, in subsection (2), the words ' made on the application of a poor law authority in their capacity as such or '; in subsection (3) the words ' or poor law ' and ' if any ' ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

There are three small points in this Amendment. The first is to repeal the words in Section 89, subsection (2); the second to insert in Section 91, the proviso to subsection (1), which is an omission; and the third to repeal Section 92, subsection (3) which is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 24, column 3, leave out (" in Section eighty-nine, subsection (2) ") and insert (" in Section ninety-one, the proviso to subsection (1); in Section ninety-two, subsection (3) ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 25, column 3, leave out (" subsection (4) ") and insert (" in subsection (4), paragraph (a), and the words from ' but in the first ' to the end of the subsection, Section one hundred and two ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 29, column 3, leave out (" in Section one hundred and nine, in subsection (2) paragraph (c) ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.