HL Deb 04 May 1972 vol 330 cc882-92

4.52 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a very short and straightforward measure. Its purpose is to keep at 13 the minimum age at which schoolchildren may undertake employment outside industry for brief periods before and after school, and for limited hours in the school holidays—for instance, as paper-boys or girls. The Bill has no bearing at all on the minimum age at which young people may work in factories or workshops, or in the mines. Work of that kind is prohibited to children of compulsory school age, not by the Children Acts but by a variety of enactments which govern employment and conditions in industry.

But underpinning these enactments there has been since 1918 a provision, first in the Education Acts and then in the Children Acts, prescribing a minimum age for all forms of employment not governed by a more stringent limit. Until 1944 this age was fixed at 12. But in the 1944 Education Act, when the school-leaving age was raised from 14 to 15 and eventually to 16, Parliament provided that the minimum age for employment should in future be raised in parallel with any rise in the school-leaving age. When the school-leaving age was raised to 15 the minimum age for employment went up to 13—and it is still 13 to-day. This year, on September 1, when the school-leaving age goes up to 16, the minimum age would, if nothing were done, rise again, automatically, to 14.

The experience of the past 25 years has led no one seriously to suggest that part-time work done by 13-year-olds, outside school hours and in accordance with the law, has done them any harm, physically, morally or educationally. On the contrary, there have been signs of a developing view that such work is often of positive value in encouraging independence, initiative and responsibility. Attitudes towards children's part-time jobs have become more flexible over the years and children themselves are generally recognised to be maturing progressively earlier.

Throughout the country there are probably at least 150,000 13-year-old children—about one in four—with regular jobs outside school hours, if we accept the findings of some recent research among a sample of schoolchildren in England. In the Government's view it would not be right to let all these children find themselves suddenly excluded from employment on September 1 simply as an incidental consequence of raising the school-leaving age. Raising the school-leaving age has no obvious bearing on the question of how far part-time work done by children of 13 is harmful or valuable; this issue needs to be considered on its own merits.

The previous Government announced early in 1970 that they would be undertaking a review of the whole of this branch of the law, with particular reference to the effects which raising the school-leaving age would have on it. When we came in we thought that this was a useful exercise and decided that it should go ahead. Towards the end of 1970 a consultative document was therefore issued to a wide range of representative bodies, and all interested were invited to send in their comments. In particular, they were asked to express a view on whether or not the minimum age for employment should rise from 13 to 14 when the school-leaving age was raised.

Overwhelmingly, the view of those consulted was that it would be a mistake to let this happen. There were a few who disagreed. For instance, the teachers' organisations were pretty evenly divided, for and against the idea that the age might be fixed at 13 and the T.U.C. was totally opposed to the idea. But even this opposition appeared to be directed to employment of children in general and made no case relating specifically to the position of children between 13 and 14. On the other hand, those who thought that the age should remain at 13 deployed some very pertinent arguments; and the Government found them convincing. This short Bill is therefore designed to sever the link with the school-leaving age. It does not affect in any way the powers of local authorities to make by-laws fixing a higher age locally, nor does it interfere at all with existing by-laws. I com mend this Bill as a necessary stabilising measure which will meet the wishes of the large majority of people concerned, including the children. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

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

4.58 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the clear exposition that he has given of the Bill. Perhaps note might be taken this afternoon of the newspaper reports of last Saturday with regard to some proceedings at Dudley Magistrates' Court, Worcestershire. Those proceedings show how very necessary it is that we have legislation to cover the employment of young people of compulsory school age and equally essential to be certain that that legislation is observed. I appreciate what the Minister said about employment in industry; nevertheless, what happened at a factory belonging to B. Kettley and Sons Limited of Quarry Bank, near Brierley Hill, is a matter of some concern.

The firm were fined a total of £1,100 after admitting 13 offences of employing under-age workers and two offences for failing to notify accidents involving boys. One was a 13-year-old lad, John Jones, who worked after school and on Saturday mornings. In his first week he was sweeping up around machines. In his second week he worked an automatic wood-turning lathe, and while so employed his thumb was injured. He was rushed to hospital; he needed to have 16 stitches in his hand, and he was off school for a number of weeks. The other boy, Michael Cadman, was aged 14. He was injured while feeding square pieces of timber into a handle rounding machine after receiving only 10 minutes' instruction. He would have lost a hand but for his own presence of mind. As it was he had to have 35 stitches and the hand was so badly lacerated that he was kept in hospital for a week. Another lad, aged 13, worked a 54-hour week for £5.40; yet another, aged 14, was paid £4.50 for 45 hours—in each case a rate of 10p an hour. While I do not wish to represent these incidents and accidents as being common, I do say, even if they occurred as a result of ignorance, it is intolerable that such things can happen at this present time.

As the Minister has said, the Bill seeks to amend the law in regard to the employment of children of compulsory school age in one respect only; that is to say, the age at which they may be employed. By so doing it brings an additional age group into the pool of juvenile labour available for part-time employment. Particularly having regard to what the Minister had to say about the replies that were received as a result of the issuing of the consultative document, I should like to ask whether this increase is necessary, and where the demand for making it available comes from. We should like a little better indication that there was a review in depth, and I very much regret that a little more importance and a little more notice was not paid to and taken of the representations of the Trades Union Congress. If I may say so, I am not surprised that teachers appear to be divided. Some teachers have been very long in the profession and they think that what was good enough in the past is good enough now and for the future. I am pretty certain that that does not represent the view of the younger teachers. I began by quoting, what I trust are very exceptional cases. Few will think that the rate of pay those boys received was very generous. Indeed, it seems to me to smack of cheap labour. I think that probably they were doing work that should have been done by adults and paid for at trade union rates of pay.

This Bill, or this Act, as it is likely to become, offers. I suggest, an opportunity for a re-examination by local authorities of their regulations covering the employment of children and a further opportunity for central Government to satisfy themselves that the regulations of the various local authorities meet the needs of the present time. I suggest that a look at such matters as milk deliveries might be undertaken. It is not just a matter of delivering newspapers. Under the terms of the Education Act 1962 a child who attains the age of 15 or 16, as the case may be, in the period from September to January inclusive, is deemed to remain of compulsory school age until the end of the following spring term. A child who becomes 15 or 16, as the case may be, in the period from February to August inclusive is deemed to remain of compulsory school age until the end of the summer term of that year. I should like to ask the Minister whether the position will be the same when we have the one school leaving age.

I should like to raise the question of the responsibility of any employer of child labour to give the local authority written notification stating his own name and address, the name and address and date of birth of the child, the occupation in which and the place at which the child is employed and the times at which the employment begins and ends, this notification to be sent within 24 hours after the employment begins, and a similar notification to be sent on the first days of January and July every year in similar terms in respect of each child employed by him. This requirement ought to be enforced in all parts of the United Kingdom. If it is the case that the Minister can give an assurance that this is in point of fact being done, then I think this is an opportunity to ensure publicity to educate those who may be unaware of the position. But I do not think that these are matters that ought to be left to the discretion of local authorities.

There are many other matters that fall for consideration: perhaps more important, a regulation that the health of the child is sound and will not suffer from the nature of the employment. That ought to be certified by a man who is medically qualified. Then, again of the greatest importance is an assurance from the school that the ability of the child to benefit from the education being offered it will not be diminished. These involve the times and the totality of hours when such work is undertaken, since these things can affect the young person's ability to face the school day and profit from the opportunities it should offer. I think that many of the young boys and girls who deliver newspapers come from what is known as the Newsom class; one does not find that many of them are boys and girls and young persons who attend grammar schools. It may well be that those who are undertaking these part-time employments really, as would be found if the matter were studied seriously, do not benefit as much from the education they are being offered as they might do if they were not getting up quite so early and if they were not expending quite so much energy before they go to school.

I frequently get my own newspaper from the newsagent, and I have fetched newspapers from newsagents in other parts of the country. I do not think anybody who visits many newsagents' shops early in the morning can be wholly satisfied. I have sometimes been a little disturbed that newspaper shops also sell cigarettes and many of the young people can all too easily purchase cigarettes which do them no good at all. One has the feeling that too often regulations are noted rather in the breach than in the observance. So I should like to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that all local authorities' regulations concerning the employment of children of compulsory school age meet current requirements. We are perhaps too easily inclined to take for granted that we need this pool of part-time child labour. Certainly many of the tasks they perform appear to be socially helpful. But, if I may make the point, some of those tasks could, with advantage to themselves, occasionally, if not quite often, be undertaken by some of those people who have retired from full employment.

We shall not oppose the Second Reading. If we feel that the Bill can be improved by Amendment we shall attempt it at Committee stage. But what would be helpful, and would perhaps assist us in making up our minds on that matter, would be an assurance that this little Bill would be made the occasion for a close look at local authority regulations to make sure that they have the "teeth" that will bite and are relevant to the present time.

5.10 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy in all that he said, but as an agriculturist I think that child labour helps the family. Most potato picking is done under contract, at so much per hundredweight. If the children can leave school and go into the fields and help their mothers—because most potato picking is done by female labour—it increases the hundredweight yield and thus increases the amount earned by the family. I am all for that. I hope that this factor will be realised by both sides of the House.

5.11 p.m.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy insisted that this question of the employment of children should be well regulated and kept under close inspection, but I do not feel quite so indignant as he did about the dangers that might affect children who are employed in delivering newspapers and in similar occupations. I am more inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who said that this work is calculated to cultivate independence, initiative and responsibility.

At the age of 10 I had a newspaper round in one of the suburbs of Birmingham. That certainly cultivated initiative on my part. At the age of 11 I was a chemist's errand boy in Birmingham and I made such an impression upon the manager of the chemist's shop that he wanted to have me apprenticed to the pharmaceutical profession. Unfortunately, family finances would not permit this. At the age of 12 I became a boot boy in the house of the local J.P., where I had many duties to perform, not merely cleaning 12 pairs of shoes every morning, but also cleaning all the knives and forks, scrubbing out the kitchen, getting in the coal, mowing the lawn on Saturdays and then rolling the lawn, and I do not think I have suffered very much as a result of that experience.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, it has certainly taught me how to be independent. It probably meant that I was a young man when I ought still to have been a boy. All the same, I do not think that my noble friend's suggestion that old-age pensioners might be made available for this work is a good one. A newspaper boy has to go out in all kinds of weather. I remember that I used to be out at six o'clock in the morning to catch the bundle of newspapers as they were thrown from the horse bus into the gutter, and I also remember that I had to go out in snowy, wintry, icy weather as well as wet weather, and that would not have been suitable for an old man of 65 or 70.

Incidentally, my Lords, it was on this newspaper round that I first made my acquaintance with that doctrine known as Socialism. I used to walk round Edgbaston and deliver newspapers to the Bishop of Birmingham, the late Dr. Charles Gore, to the house of the Dockers and to a number of other notable people. It so happened that on the same round there was a lamplighter—those were the days when a lamplighter went round with a pole and put out the lamps—and he used to lecture me on the virtues of Socialism during this hour when we walked round together every morning. We cultivated a kind of division of labour and co-operation as well, because when we had to digress from a main road up a side road I would put out his lamps for him in the one road while at the same time he would go up another side road and deliver my newspapers.

My Lords, I think newsboys are a pretty good crowd of people. I would not like to see them deprived of their occupation. They are not condemned to do it if they do not want to do it. There is no conscription about it. There are many youngsters who feel that they want to have five shillings in their pockets which they can call their own. I remember the first month's pay that I earned as a newspaper boy—I used to get only two-and-six a week and sometimes there were deductions from that on Saturday night because some customer complained that his newspaper had not been delivered, so it was stopped out of my pay. I can remember that I used my first month's wages to buy a set of boxing gloves, much to the disgust of my mother, who thought I might be knocked about.

This activity does give a child independence; it gives him some money in his pocket which he has earned himself. Youngsters of that age are full of energy and I do not think it does them much harm to attain this state of independence and to have something to occupy their minds. If they were not doing that they might be parading with hippies. Who knows? I agree with my noble friend and commend him for having insisted that there should be close regulation of child employment, but I do not think we want to get too afraid of what might happen to these youngsters when they go out in this way.

5.18 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. I am particularly grateful for the most helpful contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Nunburnholme and Lord Leatherland, in stressing the positive side of the employment of children in part-time jobs at this age. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for telling the House that he will not be opposing this Bill; and of course we shall be only too willing to look at anything he may want to suggest which would improve it at the Committee stage. He began by drawing your Lordships' attention to a recent case at Dudley magistrates' court. I think he fully realised that in doing so he was being a little naughty, in that this particular case has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

But only a little, my Lords!

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I would not say even "a little". It was a case of a flagrant contravention—

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, if I may say so, I meant that I was only a little naughty.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord he is never more than a little naughty. But I think I ought to make the position quite clear because it might have influenced some of your Lordships who think that these most deplorable happenings were in some way connected with this Bill. They were, of course, offences under the Factories Act and we certainly deplore them as much as the noble Lord himself did. If I may make one more correction in what he said, he then referred to an additional age group being introduced into the pool of labour. This is not so; it is keeping the age where it is at present, at 13.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I appreciate that; but may I put it to the Minister that instead of children from the ages of 13 to 15 we are now to have children from the ages of 13 to 16, which means an additional age group in the sense that there is one more year.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I appreciate that. I had not quite grasped the point. It is perfectly true that three years of the school age will indeed be covered. In fact, what tends to happen is that as children at school get older and they have to work for more exacting examinations they tend to drop out of the pool of part-time work. Nevertheless, I appreciate what the noble Lord was saying. I should also like to assure him that we went very carefully into all the representations that were made from a great many different organisations that replied to our circular. There were 53 organisations which gave us comments on the consultative document we sent out, and of those 53 only nine opposed the idea of fixing the minimum age at 13 throughout Great Britain, and they varied in their approach. We looked at the matter extremely carefully. We took fullest account of the views of the T.U.C., as we naturally should, but the weight of opinion lay on the other side, and we thought it right to keep the age at 13.

I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he wants with regard to the difference of provision by different local authorities through their different by-laws. As it is at present, we have sent local authorities guidance on this matter; we have sent a model by-law. But we have also in mind to take further legislative steps to make the matter the subject of statutory regulation rather than of entirely separate by-laws. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find time for this in the present legislative Session, although it is something which we will introduce when we can find time for the necessary legislation. If I may draw the noble Lord's attention to a Written Answer that was given in another place on April 18 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, he will see that it says: Other legislative proposals designed to improve and standardise the regulatory framework for administering this branch of the law, in particular the substitution of regulations for the present control by local by-laws, will be put forward as soon as Parliamentary time permits, but not during the current Session."— [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), 18/4/72; c. 63.] I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord that we are aware, as he is, of the different kinds of provision that at present exist between different local authorities. He asked me another rather technical question about school leaving day. I should like to write to him on that point; I would not commit myself straight away. I think I have answered the other questions he raised.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. I quite appreciate that some of these children work in the country in farming communities. I must say I was deeply moved by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, almost to the extent that I felt we ought to reduce the age to take account of the magnificent effect it had on him, starting at 10 years of age. I hope your Lordships are satisfied with those answers, and that you will give the Bill a Second Reading.

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