I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert:

"Provided also that it shall be the duty of the inspector of taxes for the appropriate area to send within the prescribed time to each person assessed by him under Schedule D a copy of such form and to draw his attention to the provisions of this subsection."

On the Committee stage the other day we had a Debate upon a somewhat similar Amendment, which the Government were unable to accept. The Under-Secretary gave, as his reason for not accepting the Amendment, which incidentally commends itself to a large section of this House, that it would leave out certain people and would go to other people who were not qualified. This Amendment is an attempt to meet the objections which were raised by the Under-Secretary. The Inspector of Taxes will know who is assessed under Schedule D, and it will be easy for him to send a copy of the form mentioned in the Bill to the electors who are assessed under Schedule D. Therefore we do not leave anybody out.

On a point of Order. Was not this point decided by a Division of the House on the last occasion when we discussed this matter? The Amendment differs only in its wording from that which we already considered; is it possible for an hon. Member upon the Report stage to reintroduce an Amendment which has been defeated upon the Committee stage?

It may be a mistake on my part for having called it. Sir Derrick Gunston.

Surely that is an extraordinary Ruling. If a Member of the House draws attention to something which is irregular and out of Order, and this is half admitted, can it then be imposed upon the House?

I am informed that although it may seem to be the same Amendment, it is actually slightly different.

I assure my hon. Friend that this is a different Amendment. The other dealt with the rating authority, while this proposes that it shall be the Inspector of Taxes. I assure the Under-Secretary that nobody will be left out. The form will be sent to people entitled to vote. It would create disappointment if they got the form and found they were not entitled to vote. I do not see any objection to putting on the form that the form was sent merely to call attention to the provisions of the Bill. I think that could be done without any difficulty. I would remind hon. Members opposite that we are not discussing in any way business firms, although some of my hon. Friends thought the other day that we were. We are merely discussing the best means of acquainting business men with the fact that they are entitled to this vote. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) may not approve of the business vote, but I am sure, he being a fair-minded man, that he would be the last to try to prevent the knowledge being given to any man that he could vote. In a speech the other day the Home Secretary himself paid a great tribute to the small busines man and said he did not want to see the small business man swallowed up by the big, bad wolf of business. We want to safeguard the small business man. Under the Bill the register will be very much larger than it has ever been before, and we feel that the business man who is entitled to a vote should be so acquainted.

There is another fact. It was very difficult to deal with all our difficulties the other day, but to-day we have the very good fortune of having the Home Secretary on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on recovering from his indisposition. I know that he in no way opposes the small shopkeeper and small business man and does not want him to be swallowed up by big business, but both to be swallowed up by the State. Personally, I should not mind whether I was swallowed up by a red or a blue wolf. He must recognise that this business vote does exist, and he would be the last man to want to prevent people from using it. It may be that the words of the Amendment are not the best possible ones. I appeal to the Home Secretary, if he cannot accept these words, to meet us by considering the matter very carefully to see whether he can substitute another form of words in another place. We do not want to divide the House again or the Government to run any narrow risks. It is in the friendliest spirt that I move this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment. I do so with the greatest, pleasure and sincerity, speaking on behalf of the small business people scattered throughout the country, particularly in the big towns and ports which have suffered so severely under war conditions. I feel that this Amendment would be greatly welcomed by them. It would assist them, for once in a while. I urge my right hon. Friend to do his very best to meet us over this matter.

The hon. and gallant Member did me the honour of saying that I am a fair-minded man. I hope I am. I have always regarded him as a fair man. I listened the other day to the discussion of an Amendment which was not very dissimilar from the one that we are discussing to-day. I cannot see why it is considered necessary to make this special application to one section of the community. I am a plural voter. I think it is all wrong, but I am, and obviously will exercise my plural vote. My second vote is on the ground of my academic distinction, of which the hon. and gallant Member may not be aware, but which is very real. Because I have an additional vote, do I need a special provision to remind me of the fact that I have a privilege which is not available to the general community? As I understood the hon. and gallant Member, the section of the community about which he spoke is regarded as being somewhat superior to the average manual worker. Is it necessary to tell these people that they have rights under the law and it is not necessary to tell an unskilled labourer in an engineering works?

Under the Bill there will be a larger register. The business vote is part of it. There will be a new form of register, and many shopkeepers will not know where they are. Much of this information would go to them.

The point is that they are citizens the same as the rest of us, and they should know what is going on in the community and be aware of their rights. I do not think the point is a big one or that it affects the small shopkeepers. In my own division the small shopkeeper usually has a residential vote. It is not the small shopkeeper in my division who would be affected by this Amendment but the large absentee owner, who has residential qualifications in some more agreeable area. I do not want owners of big business to be able to come into the Bridgeton Division to vote during the General Election. It is wasting the time of the nation for them to do so, when they can cast their votes with more prospect of making them effective in some other division. It seems to me that the reply of the Home Secretary which was made last week is completely adequate, namely, that for all this means from the point of view of the number of people concerned it is unfair to add to the already complicated job we are putting on to the local officers charged with the preparation of this register which is frankly admitted to be an emergency register for war purposes.

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member should worry so much about the possibility of those people being disfranchised. I am surprised—and this is what really brought me to my feet—that he went out representing the House to Newfoundland and spent three months investigating the problems of democracy out there, has come back, and, so far as I know, he is not disturbed about the fact that people in Newfoundland have not got a vote at all, He comes back here without any propaganda for the restoration of votes to the people of Newfoundland, yet here he is shouting about securing a second vote for people who have already got one on the basis of their residence. It seems to me a great inconsistency, which I am surprised to find in the character and mentality of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think that no injustice is being done if the Home Secretary continues in his refusal to make special provision for this particular section of the community.

I should like to express my appreciation to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) for his kindly reference to my slight indisposition; I am glad to say that I feel much better. It was very kind of him to have said that. I thank him also for the friendly and considerate tone of the speech he has made. Everybody seems to be on his best behaviour to-day, both on the Workmen's Compensation Bill and this one, and I welcome the change, being a man of peace myself. There is a great deal to be said for having a row; it is often conducive to friendliness thereafter, I find, in the House of Commons. On this subject now before the House my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had quite a rough time the other day, and I have to thank him again very warmly for the stout defence he made and the ability with which he conducted the Committee stage of the Bill. Some of the things that were said were rather severe. The hon. Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) said:

"… this is one more of those dirty tricks we are getting from certain Members of the Government. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1943; col. 730, Vol. 393.]

I think that was a pointed reference to me, and that the hon. Member was getting, near the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in the vigour of his expressions, which I think was rather to be deprecated.

This is a problem of real practical difficulty, and it has so far defeated me to find a solution which Members on this side would like, not through any lack of wish to uphold the law as it is, even though I might like to alter it, but because of the practical difficulties. I may say also that it has defied the solution they would wish not only from me. I admit that I may be a subject of suspicion, because on the merits of the business vote everybody knows where my political party stands and where I stand. I make no secret that I think it is a difficult thing to defend. But I start on the basis that it is part of the law, and that it is my duty as Home Secretary and the Minister concerned to facilitate the operation of this law fairly. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am absolutely genuine about that. If ever we want to alter this law it will be for Parliament to alter it in a straightforward, upright way. It is not for me to evade it by creating administrative difficulties or by administrative evasions. I hope the House will agree that I would not do that. But it really is a very difficult matter. We are basing this Bill on National Registration. While the National Registration people can easily ascertain who are the adult popula- tion over 21 years of age, and where they live, and they can be classified in constituencies by the National Registration and the electoral registration officers between them, when it comes to trying to find out who is entitled to the local government vote or the business premises vote the National Registration machinery simply does not help us at all.

Then there is the problem that if the business premises register were to be compiled, we should be back to the ordinary system which it is the purpose of this Bill to avoid, substituting instead another system based upon the electoral registration organisation. To set the local authorities or the electoral registration officers on the enormous task of an extensive canvass would involve a considerable amount of man-power in respect of by-elections, that is to say, the stage 1 class of election. It would set them the impossible task of ascertaining and compiling the register between the initiation of the election and the making up of the register itself. Everybody knows that the local authorities are very heavily driven, that their staff position is exceedingly difficult, and it really would not be possible to impose that job on them, because if the electoral registration officer is himself to be made responsible for the compilation of a register we must be sure that he can do it. If he fails, if he leaves a number of people off for some reason or equally he puts some on who have no right to be on, he is open to very serious criticism from one quarter or another.

I assure the House that it would not be practical politics to present the electoral registration officer with the problem of compiling this register between the intiation of the election at a by-election and the publication of the register on the date we are proposing to appoint for the purpose. Between now and stage 2—not a war-time General Election but a post-war General Election—it may be possible that something additional may be found practicable, and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend and those associated with him that if between now and stage 2, that is the General Election stage, we find a means whereby the administration can be improved and tightened up, believe me, I will not hesitate to see that is done, so long as in the meantime Parliament has not altered the law about the business electoral qualification.

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that stage 2 would be the General Election stage. Is it not possible that stage 1 might also include a General Election?

It is possible of course, but I thought I made myself clear. It is possible that there might be a wartime General Election in the sense that it would be administratively practicable under this Bill—we all have views as to whether it should happen, most of us think not. I admit that if that happened I could not help the House very much on the point except as far as it is covered by the general observations I shall make presently. I admit that in a war-time General Election we should be in much the same difficulty as I am in about wartime Parliamentary by-elections. The proposal before the House is a rather different one. It raises practically the same principle as was raised in the Amendment on the Committee stage. That Amendment would have used the machinery of rating. This uses the machinery of national taxation. I think the present idea is less practicable than the other was because rating is more relevant to the matter than imperial taxation. Moreover the rating officers live in the locality—they are usually officers of the local authority—and for this reason could probably handle the matter better.

I do not blame hon. Members for being ingenious in trying to find a solution, but will give the House some facts which I think indicate that the proposal really would not work. The Inland Revenue—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the same view—do not like the idea of the officers concerned with tax inspection and collection being concerned with electoral machinery at all. They think it is a strange field, in which to bring them and they would sooner that they were out of it. Let us see what the facts are, and how far this Amendment gets away from the field of qualifications. Out of a total electorate in England and Wales of some 28,000,000, it is estimated that the total business premises electorate on the existing basis is 354,864, and of that number 214,932 qualify by their own occupation of the business premises, that is to say, they are not qualified merely by virtue of the independent qualification of husband or wife. The total of persons assessed to Schedule D on the last return was some 800,000. Therefore the first thing that would happen would be that an enormous number of people, somewhere between 450,000 and 580,000, with no right to be registered at all would be getting these particulars about the business vote, and the facilities for registering. Moreover, there may be on the other hand some people, I do not say many, who because of unusually low incomes are, although in occupation of business premises, not assessed to Schedule D at all and would not get the form.

I think there is nothing more annoying to the average citizen than to find that some Government official, especially if he is a tax gatherer, has been scattering forms to hundreds of thousands of people who have no concern whatever in the matter with which the form deals, and I can imagine irate questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him what he meant by distributing these forms to hundreds of thousands who were not concerned. While it would be right and just that my hon. and gallant Friend should be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had to answer the questions which his Amendment might promote, nevertheless I cannot be certain of that. Otherwise if only to witness his embarrassment I would be happier at accepting the Amendment. But there would be great irritation and considerable criticism of the scandalous waste of effort. Other people who would not get the form at all but who ought to get it—I admit the number would be quite limited—would be still more annoyed. But even if all the people who ought to get the letter or form did get it in addition to all those who ought not to get it, there is no guarantee that although they got it they would do anything about it. It is an unhappy fact in the experience of us all that the electorate is rather apathetic, especially when it comes to doing anything, even if it is the getting of the vote. Each party believes that its own supporters are the most apathetic, but the fact is that we have all got to lead them by the hand and take great care with them, or democracy would not work. As I say, there is no guarantee whatever that when the form or the letter has been delivered the elector will take any notice of it, and I think that the value of this from the point of view of hon. Members is being very much exaggerated.

The other point is that the taxing officers could not, I am afraid, classify the constituencies. I do not know that that would be fatal, but I am sure that officers of taxes know nothing about constituency boundaries and could only send a very general statement wholesale all over the country asking you to apply to your local registration officer or what not and giving you that kind of advice. Honestly, I do not think the scheme would work. I think it would be largely ineffective. After all, it was not I who invented the idea that the business electors should claim. It was the inter-party or non-party Departmental Committee which recommended that business electors should claim, because they could not see any other alternative. This was a very good Committee, representative of pretty well all the political parties in this House. In addition, we had on it the principal agents of the political parties, including the principal agent of the Conservative Central Office, some expert registration officers and officers of the Home Office and Scottish Office. You could not have had a more representative or competent Committee or one in which all the interests concerned were more fully represented, and they did suggest that this was the best way of doing it.

Having said that and returned a negative reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, which I do with no pleasure, because, as I said, my business is to see that the law is carried out, let me add this. We are promoting an Amendment which will be helpful to some extent, particularly in the case of the husband who is absent during the war. We are making it possible for the husband to claim on behalf of the wife or the wife to claim on behalf of the husband, and the wife being at home while the husband is at the war will be able to claim in her own respect and in his as well. I think as far as it goes that will not be unhelpful and should be conducive to the operation of the law.

The next point about which I will give an undertaking is this. We will see that there is suitable publicity. For instance, as by-elections occur, we will have suitable publicity immediately advising the potential business voter how to set about making his claim and tell him all about it. As I have said, at the post-war General Election, assuming that the law remains as it is, we will do what we can to be even more forthcoming.

Finally, may I say this? I hope the House will forgive my talking about party machines. They are things that we all use, but somehow or other we seem to think it indelicate to talk about them. As one who has had something to do with them, I perhaps feel more affection for them than hon. Members who have had nothing much to do with them but who have got the benefit of them and who feel at the same time that they cannot talk freely about them. Anyhow the organisation that is concerned with this matter is the party machine. I do not think that those of us who think that the business vote is on the whole a liability, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself, will be unduly excited and get our party machines going, but others like my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), who is not here to-day but whose interest in the matter I fully appreciate and understand, will have a great interest in seeing that the business electors are put on the register, and from their point of view I do not blame them.

If I may give advice to Conservative Members on how to go about this—I do not know that I should, but I just want to manifest my complete impartiality and good will on this subject—I should say set the party machine on this job at once. Let them take their time. There is no great hurry as long as you do not expect a by-election soon. Let them accumulate a list of potential business voters. There is no reason why that should not be done quietly and unobtrusively and steadily straight away in the constituencies. When the election comes they will then have a substantially complete list of the potential business voters of the constituency. This is what I should do if I were running the Conservative Central Office, which Heaven forbid. They know as much about electioneering as I do—nearly—and they have done very well on many occasions, but not always. Having accumulated these lists of potential business voters, when the election comes you can set about canvassing them and seeing that they fill up the form and make the application to be registered. I will see to it as far as the Home Office and the local registration officers are concerned, again on the basis that my busi- ness is to administer the law and not to interfere with it once it exists, that the Home Office and the local registration officers do everything possible to see that proper official co-operation exists between the registration officers and the party organisations, all or any of them, so that the work of the Party organisation in getting their people registered can be done with all smoothness and alacrity. The forms can be available, and we can arrange it so that the Party organisations—whichever one of them is concerned or all of them—can have from the electoral registration officers and the Home Office proper facilities to enable them as smoothly and swiftly as possible to do the jobs which I think they will have to do in the circumstances.

Having said that, I think I have manifested a fair spirit, especially as it is well known that I would have other opinions about the merits of the business vote. But it is there, it is the law, and my business is to see it operating and not to make any trouble about it. Therefore I suggest that it would not be wise to press this Amendment. It is an Amendment which does not stand up to factual examination. I have given my hon. and gallant Friend free expert professional advice on how his Party machine should work. I have given an undertaking that as far as official co-operation is concerned we will not be standoffish but will be as helpful as we properly can be. The Government intend to do what they can to be fair in this matter; I would ask hon. Members to accept my bona fides and in the circumstances I hope they will see their way not to press the Amendment.

While I have not found myself in agreement with all that my right hon. Friend has said, I must say that after his speech I feel considerably happier than I did during the Committee stage of the Bill. He has certainly gone a long way towards meeting our very genuine and sincere apprehensions that individuals who were qualified as voters for business premises were—perhaps unwittingly—being handicapped under this Bill. They still will be handicapped to some extent. I was particularly interested in the right hon. Gentleman's point that there would not be time in the first stage, to set up machinery on the lines that my hon. Friends and I are advocating in this Amendment or those advocated in other Amendments of a different character in the Committee stage. I appreciate that there may be substance in what my right hon. Friend said in answer to our contentions on that; I also appreciated immensely his, indication of the steps that would be taken in the second stage, which is, after all, far more fundamental because the first stage may not involve a General Election but merely a by-election, and the second stage is certain to involve a General Election in any case. I hope that by that stage my right hon. Friend will have been enabled to do something even further than he has indicated to-day and in taking practical steps to give the business voter better facilities for reminder, in order that he will be under no handicap whatever.

To a large extent my misgivings and apprehensions are met by the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will do everything possible to give publicity to the business voter's entitlement to vote and how he can claim and so on. If those assurances are implemented, as I am sure they will be, in full measure and running over, as it were, I would feel considerably happier than I did before. It was because I felt that the business voter was not going to get the fullest opportunity of learning his position, and the fullest encouragement to make his application, that I had misgivings. My right hon. Friend gave some excellent advice, as from an expert on the subject, on how the Conservative and Unionist Party should run its party machine in connection with this matter. In the second or subsequent stages the Conservative and Unionist Party will need no assistance or indeed advice in this connection, because it will have, as all other parties will have, its agents and its full staffs and its machinery. But in the first stage about which I am still concerned—though as I say I appreciate the arguments of my right hon. Friend—no political party will have facilities to operate this machinery or to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend. With the best will in the world, however perfect the advice, it could not be followed because the agents are not there. Many constituencies have no agencies. Many organisations have honoured the party truce, which all of us on this side have kept, so strictly that they are almost shut down. My own organisation is almost non-existent. I have no agent and the same applies to large numbers of my hon. Friends and no doubt to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, the advice of my right hon. Friend, that the party machinery should undertake this very complex and difficult work at any rate in its initial stage cannot be followed. I wish, generally, to thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has taken our point of view in this matter. We have been very genuine and serious about it, and I think, on the whole, he has been sympathetic towards it. I only regret that he was not able to make a further concession on the first stage. I hope we can rely on every possible step being taken in the second stage to ensure that, by some means or other, not necessarily by the method advocated in this Amendment, what is behind our point of view will be fully and amply met.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the recommendation of the Committee, in regard to the second stage, that a notice should be sent out, and set up some machinery to notify people on that stage?

I have forgotten the exact point, but I will certainly look into it sympathetically.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and for his advice? I hope that if I fight a by-election one day he will be seconded to help me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert:

"Where a husband and wife are qualified to be registered in respect of any business premises by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section, the said application may be made by either of them on behalf of both of them."

The position in regard to this matter was fully gone into in the previous discussion, and I do not think there is anything more to be said.

This Amendment cannot be allowed to pass without protest, because it is like the one which was defeated on the last occasion. The House will notice with what pertinacity our friends on the other side pursue every opportunity of entrenching themselves in a position of privilege. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary was absent through sickness last time, and did not see the exhibition we had here, when suddenly those benches filled up as the result of an organised plan to defeat the Government. It was only Members on this side who saved the Government from a heavy defeat. When Members on this side are deeply moved by great social and humanitarian questions, it is a very different matter from what it is when people in a privileged position are concerned. My right hon. Friend has gone out of his way to placate hon. Members opposite, which he has never done for hon. Members on this side.

I have been doing exactly the same thing to-day on the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The continuity of the two Bills to-day is an amazing example of Parliamentary harmony.

An amazing example of change of front on both sides since the matter was last discussed. There is only a slight alteration in this Amendment as compared with the other. They are now being given half of what they lost on the vote. It is specifically set down in the records of the House that what they asked for then was negatived on the voices. Now they are being—

The hon. Member must not go further into what has happened. There is an Amendment on the Paper which has been moved. Perhaps he will address himself to that.

My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to help the people on that side, and now we find ourselves in this position. I know that it is useless; otherwise, I would divide the House on the matter. This Amendment raises precisely the same question as was raised in the other. It is a question of whether people should make application for their votes, as the Committee decided that they should. The Government, after the promoters of that Amendment have been defeated, have gone out of their way to retain part of the privilege which the Committee thought they should not have. I make this protest, in order that it shall be on record that we object to such treatment, which, coming from such a source, we should not have expected.

I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's grievance on the point. There was a difficult situation in the House the other day, and it is true that the Government would have been in difficulties had it not been for Labour and Liberal support in the Division Lobby. I appreciate that, although I am sure that the votes on both sides were given in conviction. It is true that the Government sometimes get saved the other way, as we were on the Workmen's Compensation Bill—although the revolt was not so great perhaps on that occasion. All that we have done to-day is that my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment and I in courteous terms have replied. There is nothing strange about that. That often happens in Parliament, but I do not think I should pursue this question. I gather that you are getting rather anxious, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I should just like to pour oil on the troubled waters between the Home Secretary and the Labour Party. The Under-Secretary said that he would accept the Amendment before the other Amendment was withdrawn. There is no question of the Government giving way to pressure.

I want to get that technical point right.

The hon. Member cannot make a second speech.

Surely I can correct a statement which is not accurate in regard to my speech.

If it is just a matter of correction.

The Amendment was not withdrawn last time; it was actually defeated on a vote.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives His Consent, as far as His Majesty's Prerogative is concerned, that this House may do therein as they shall think fit.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "authorising," and to insert "permitting."

It will be recalled that when this Bill was discussed the other day in a very conciliatory introduction, my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is not here at the moment, said in effect that it was merely of a permissive nature and would not weaken or restrict the position of a trader. It would merely allow him, if he wished, to confine certain kinds of sales to certain people. This is a Bill which nobody seems to like, and which the House could have done very well without. From the information which reaches me, traders do not get from the Board of Trade the assistance which they should get. I would like it made quite clear that this is put forward as a permissive Bill. In that case I can see no reason why the word "permitting" should not be inserted. With the word "authorising," I think it would be within the power of the Board of Trade to issue an authorisation which would be tantamount to a direction. Experience of the administration of the Act which this Bill seeks to amend has shown that when the trader has come to the Board of Trade and asked for help and guidance the Board of Trade has said, "It is not for us to do that, but for the courts." I hope the House will insist that this Bill shall be purely permissive, so that we shall not be faced with a situation in which the Board of Trade can issue when it likes an authorisation which will be tantamount to a direction.

I should like to answer one remark which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. He said that many traders went to the Board of Trade for help and advice, and were turned empty away. That is a very hard accusation, and I believe it to be generally an inaccurate accusation. It is generally true that our task is not to interpret the law, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend cannot fairly say that the traders who approach the Board of Trade for advice are on the whole treated in anything but a helpful way. I am advised that "authorised" is a neater legal phrase, but my hon. and gallant Friend is probably as good a judge of legal phrases as anybody else, and, therefore, if he likes the word "permitted" better, I am only too glad to accept the Amendment.

I desire to thank by hon. and gallant Friend and the Board of Trade for their kindness in meeting me. When I say that a large number of persons have been turned away by the Board of Trade, I speak for the people who have come to me, and not of the generality of cases. I should be very happy to supply my hon. and gallant Friend with the names of some of the persons.

I desire to move that a certain two lines of Clause 1 be omitted so that the Clause would apply merely to retail traders.

May I ask what Amendment the hon. and gallant Member is moving? The one I called stands in the names of Mr. Etherton and others, to leave out "or otherwise."

I thought I was right in saying that the words "or otherwise" would bring in more than retail traders.

Is the hon. and gallant Member moving that?

I thought I was right in pointing out that when the Minister explained the Bill on the Second Reading he said it was wanted to cover retail traders in general.

There is a second Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of Mr. Etherton and others. When the hon. Gentleman rose I thought he intended to speak on the Amendment to leave out "or otherwise."

That is what I was doing. I understand that these words "or otherwise" are put in to extend the number of persons who would come within the purview of this Bill. My only object in rising was to say that in view of what was said on Second Reading, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a position to say that the same considerations apply right through the transactions, I will not move the Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Member must move if he wants the right to reply.

I beg to move, in page line 14, to leave out "or otherwise."

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give us some explanation of the matter.

I am not absolutely clear what my hon. and gallant Friend objects to. These words are put in to enable us to permit certain goods to be disposed of by manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in accordance with the licences we grant. To give a specific example in view of possible necessities in bombed areas we asked wholesalers and others—and they were good enough to comply with our request—to hold considerable stocks of essential household goods in different parts of the country so that after an air raid it would be possible for them to rush down essential pots and pans and clothing and that sort of thing to the area in which a raid had occurred. I am advised that it is desirable to include these words "or otherwise" so that, for example, the licences we grant may operate at a particular time—that is so that the licences should apply not only to a class of persons and to certain goods but to the time at which those goods may be sold, and should apply to manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers.

Does that mean that a retailer now has no power to sell goods to those people who have suffered in bombed areas?

Yes, indeed, he has power to sell them, but the point is that he cannot at present refuse to sell them to anybody who comes along. What we want to do is to provide that, for the time being, a retailer may say: "I am not going to supply these special things to ordinary customers. I am going to reserve them for poor people who have been bombed out of their houses." This Clause will permit retailers to do that without being in jeopardy under Section 9 of the 1941 Act.

I must say quite frankly and openly to the Parliamentary Secretary that although I am not of a suspicious turn of mind as a rule and not one who always mistrusts Government Departments or Ministers, I cannot understand the reason for introducing this Bill in the fifth year of war when we have got the better of the Hun and the Nazi and the bombing plane. We know that cities and towns in this country have been devastated and thousands of people made homeless, but for the last two years we have had no very terrible happenings as regards air-raid damage. Generally speaking, people in this country have begun to recognise that we are on top and that we can meet almost any eventuality which arises as the result of air-raid damage. I think the misgivings and fears of my hon. and gallant Friend arise because he thinks that this Clause as it is drafted will give powers to people other than retailers.

The original idea, I think, was that it should apply only to retailers. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to give these powers to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, factors and all kinds of people. The Minister's statement the other day was very brief; indeed, it was a pathetic case. Perhaps if the gentlemen advising him could come here and tell us the position, they might be able to give us added reasons. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary did his best, but I would ask those hon. Members who are here, small though the number is, whether they are fully convinced that the only reason for bringing in such a Measure as this is the fear of Doncaster, Wigan, Leeds, Bristol or some other town being badly damaged by an air raid. It just does not ring true. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that this Clause, as it stands, will permit something far more than sales such as he has suggested.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have been listening to him for some time and trying to find the connection between his speech and this rather narrow Amendment on the Paper.

The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "or otherwise," and I was trying to follow the lines of the Mover of the Amendment. I am sorry if I have misunderstood his objection, but it does seem to me that the Bill as it stands would bring in quite a lot of people that many of us would like to leave out. If the proposal is only that certain retailers may do certain things, I would give support—though it would not be enthusiastic support—to this particular Clause, but the words "or otherwise" seem to allow other people to be brought in. Those people would be able to corner goods and hoard them for a long time, and I believe that would happen if we brought them within the scope of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) and I are connected with the retail distribution trade. We have not been given any example to explain the necessity for putting these words "or otherwise" into the Clause. I should have thought that the manufacturer, the merchant, the wholesaler and the retailer really covered the whole of the trade of the country. What else has the Board of Trade in mind? I think we are entitled to ask that question when we see these words "or otherwise" in the Bill. Do they mean, for instance, that if a raid took place a Government Department could commandeer from the manufacturer class goods and rush them down to the devastated area? I would not object to that. Or could a municipality become a retailer for this purpose? I would not object to that. The trouble is that we do not know what is meant. It is common knowledge that if the premises of one co-operative society are blasted by the Germans, by what is called the enemy, another co-operative society comes to its assistance at once. Now that the co-operative movement covers practically the whole of the country it appears rather strange that the Board of Trade should put in these words "or otherwise." It is simply a question of trying to get to know, when you have brought in the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the merchant and the retailer, who is meant by "or otherwise." That is a fair question.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend in failing to understand the meaning of these words, because I must confess that I myself always find it difficult, and probably always shall find it difficult, to grasp what is meant by a Parliamentary draftsman. I understand however that these words are not intended to apply to any section of people. The Clause says:

"… they may issue licences authorising such persons to restrict sales from such stocks to particular classes of buyers or otherwise as may be specified in a licence or to impose conditions …"

We are not specifying the classes of people who may sell. We are asking for power to refer in these licences, not only to particular classes of buyer, but to other matters, such as, for example, the period during which sales may be made.

Then ought not the words "or otherwise" to be "or otherwise specified"?

The words are "or otherwise as may be specified."

It is dreadful draftsmanship.

This Amendment seeks to improve the draftsmanship, but I suggest that by leaving out these words the intention would be altered. This is a provision which will definitely be useful, and I assure the House it will not have the effect that either of the hon. Members opposite thinks it will. It will merely allow us not only to specify classes of persons but to specify conditions under which these de-restrictions should be made. I do again emphasise the fact that this is a de-restricting Measure and not one to increase restrictions.

The question of imposing conditions is already specifically provided for in the Sub-section. If the words "or otherwise" were deleted, there would still be power to enforce conditions, because they are expressly stated in the Clause itself.

If we left out these words, we would only have the power to specify particular classes of people. I have endeavoured to point out that we are dealing not only with classes of buyer but with extraneous circumstances, such as the time at which the thing arises. Without these words we would be limited to classes. I am told that any two people doing the same thing, or wearing similar hats, can be termed a class of people, and we could twist the words "class of people" to meet almost any purpose; but putting the words "or otherwise" in here makes it clear that we do not only want to deal with classes of people but with other circumstances, as well, and I ask the Committee to accept the position.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has enlightened us, but when he was dealing with the legal problem my eyes were directed towards the right hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt). I am wondering what is passing through his mind when ordinary ignorant laymen like ourselves are dealing with these very difficult problems of law. It would be an excellent thing if we could have a legal luminary like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to enlighten us on these two words.

I have not seen this Bill.

I should like to support the Parliamentary Secretary. He is only doing what is right and proper now that the principle of the Bill has been admitted and he has put in words which from this point of view make administration easier. I opposed the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading and thought the Bill was of no great value. At the same time I feel that hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden), are animated in their opposition towards the Amendment by the antagonism they showed towards the Bill on its Second Reading. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for substituting decent and proper English for the unfortunate term he introduced on a previous occasion.

I beg to move,

"That the Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1943, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."

I beg to second the Motion.

The treatment of juvenile delinquents has recently shocked this House and the public and I am about to give the House the details of yet another case. I hope that as a result, in conjunction with what has come before the House before, hon. Members will come to the conclusion that our whole system of dealing with juvenile delinquents should drastically be looked into.

The particular case to which I desire to draw attention concerns a girl of 15 years of age who was prosecuted for being found at Hyde Park Corner drunk and incapable at 1 o'clock in the morning in company with soldiers. Before I relate what transpired, I desire to inform the House that both the girl and her mother—the father is dead—have without hesitation given consent to their case and their names being made public. Nevertheless, in the girl's future interests I have decided not to mention her name and I shall therefore refer to her from now onwards as "Mary."

The mothers tells me that Mary, her only child, was a good and useful daughter until such time as the mother was conscripted for war work and went to the Ministry of Information as a typist, when Mary was left on her own for long periods. It was then that this high-spirited and attractive-looking girl made undesirable friends. These taught her to drink and to do other things which were objectionable for one so young. Mary was completely dazzled by her new environment and her mother, not having the time to exercise proper control over her, in desperation, consulted Miss May, a St. Marylebone probation officer, who apparently suggested that the mother should give her daughter a good whipping. The mother pointed out that the daughter was considerably larger than she was. At that period that was the limit of the probation officer's assistance. Eventually a Mr. Hooper, of the St. Marylebone Juvenile Employment Exchange, found Mary a job as a junior clerk, and I would like to point out to the Under-Secretary representing the Home Office that it was not the mother who found her daughter this job, as was suggested to me in a somewhat disparaging way by the Home Office.

It was soon after this that Mary was picked up by the police, drunk and incapable at Hyde Park Corner. She came before the Chelsea juvenile court, and the magistrate, the Hon. Lady Montagu, sent her to the Shirley remand home at Croydon to undergo medical examination. When she again came before the court, Miss Montagu, with the additional information that she had at her disposal, sentenced Mary to be on probation for a year, and at the suggestion of a Miss Rich, superintendent of the Croydon remand home, she sent the girl to do canteen work in a particular land girls' Y.W.C.A. hostel, which was in the country. She was seen off at the station by the St. Marylebone probation officer and for five weeks, that is to say, from then until the time that I drew the attention of the Home Secretary to this case, proper supervision of the girl ceased.

It is now stated by the Home Office that though it was about five weeks before the probation officer visited Mary, nevertheless, the probation officers, who, after all, were responsible for her, were in close touch with the hostel throughout and gave all particulars concerning Mary by letter and telephone. There is something strange here because a few days after this child arrived at the hostel the warden of the hostel rang up Mary's mother, and, after inquiring what had happened to a parcel of clothing that the girl was expecting, asked her mother what were the circumstances of the girl being sent there, as she had been told nothing. Mark you, the warden of this hostel had been told nothing about the probationer. Seeing that Mary was supposed to be in need of special care and to be under the warden's supervision, this seemed to her mother to be most extraordinary. The mother, of course, gave the desired information. Very shortly afterwards, I understand, this particular warden left the hostel under most doubtful circumstances. Before she left, however, she had found time to inform all the land girls in the hostel of the whole history of Mary's record that the mother had conveyed to the warden in confidence. Surely, that was an entirely unnecessary piece of unkindness on the part of that warden, but is it not rather extraordinary that this warden, who left the hostel while Mary was still there, did not tell her successor whom she overlapped anything about Mary at all? The new warden wrote to the probation officer who had originally sent Mary down there, and I quote from her letter:

"I was pleased to receive your letter. Having just taken over this hostel, I knew nothing about Mary."

The first warden told nothing to the second one about a person who was placed in her charge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did she not tell her?"] I shall come to that in a moment. Soon afterwards, the new warden told Mary's mother that it was impossible for her to exercise any supervision over her daughter during off duty hours as she the new warden, had too much to do. The Home Office have informed me that the new warden took up no such attitude. It may astonish them to realise that this warden has corroborated to me personally what was told to Mary's mother. The girl was, therefore, able to go into a near-by town, which is full of troops, completely on her own if she desired to do so. Until I took up this case she was at no time, during these first five weeks, at this hostel visited by any probation officer, to find out what the conditions were. Not even the local probation officer was asked to go and see her, and although Mary wrote to the Miss May I have referred to, she received no reply for four weeks. It is possible that that was because Miss May, the Marylebone probation officer, was ill, but Miss May had deputies. Anyhow, all this was not very encouraging to a girl who was supposedly being helped to pull herself together and make a fresh start. It is quite unnecessary for me to say that the girl felt utterly miserable and cast off by everyone, and that she complained of the immense amount of work she had to do. I understand that the land girls told her to shut up and that she was lucky not to be in an approved school. The new warden told her that unless she did what she was told without complaint she would be dismissed.

Early on Friday, 22nd October, I informed the Home Office that I intended to raise the matter, given the opportunity, on the Adjournment. That same afternoon a St. Marylebone probation officer arrived at Mary's hostel, hot-foot from London, to interview Mary and got her to say that she was happy there and would grumable no more. The new warden gave this information to me the same day over the telephone. When I told this to Mary's mother she was dumbfounded. I must say that I was getting perplexed myself, so I decided to find out, at first hand, exactly what was going on at this hostel. On 25th October I called at the hostel and had a talk with the new warden and the cook, an elderly lady who had been there all the time, and with Mary. I asked Mary why she had told her mother one thing and the probation officer another and she replied, without any hesitation, that she had been told that if she was sent away from that hostel she would have to go before a magistrate again. With tears in her eyes she added that anything would be better than that. So she was forced to tell the probation officer what she did tell her. To put it bluntly, she was intimidated.

I then asked her about her work and the working hours. I find that the circumstances were slightly at variance with what I originally conveyed to the Home Office in the letter which I wrote to them on 20th October. I have here the true details of Mary's work, just as she gave them to me, and corroborated by other people in that hostel. It is a list which makes one tired even to read. This girl had to work from six o'clock in the morning until two or three o'clock in the afternoon and at night from 6.30 or 7.0 until 10 o'clock. The hours were sometimes varied but not counting meal-times, this girl of 15 had to work on an average 10 back-breaking hours a day of drudgery, scrubbing floors and kitchen pots, cleaning lavatories and the like. Never have I seen the hands of any woman in such a pitiable state as were the hands of that young girl, through the work she had to do. The house in which she worked is a very large, straggling, rather tumble-down Victorian mansion standing in its own grounds and Mary was expected to do practically the whole of it—not of course the cooking, but all the rest of the domestic work. I am very willing to read out the details of her work, but perhaps the House would prefer to be spared these harrowing details, and in that event I will spare them. On second thoughts however I do not think I will. I think the House ought to be aware of what this young girl had to do very day. I will give it to the House just as I took it down from Mary herself. It was corroborated by the cook and by another inmate of the hostel. This was Mary's day:

"Get up every morning at 6 o'clock then help to prepare or get the girls' breakfast and help to get the things ready for the girls' sandwiches. Then, while the breakfast is being served, as the girls finish their porridge, start to wash up and then as soon as the serving is finished clean pots and clear away the tables that the girls have used for sandwiches; then scrub the two tables, wash board down, clean sink, empty tea-pots, sweep the floor and then have my breakfast. When finished, start on girls' dormitories. Sweep floor, tidy stands, mop over floor with dry mop, then clean out grate, mop over floor with polish, dust everywhere and on top of girls' wardrobes and then put the bunks back and anything else that is moved. This is done three times because there are three dormitories. Then sweep first passage and mop over and dust thoroughly, then start on girls' bathrooms. Scrub at the back of the sinks, clean mirrors and scrub shelves, clean taps and basins and baths then sweep out well and mop over with polish. Sweep the other passage and clean and dust w.c., then mop all through and dust odd bits. Then clean staff bathroom and w.c. and polish floor and then the other passage and sweep back-stairs. Then sweep the front stairs and hall and scrub stairs down one day and the hall the other day right the way through and dust well. Then wash dusters, have lunch and am off duty at 2.0 till 7.0 or 6.30. In that time do my washing, wash self and do own room and any odd things such as mending. Then, when I come on at night, get plates down, help serve dinner after having my own and then wash pots, clean up kitchen and make girls' tea, take it in, and then finish off pots. Prepare supper, prepare pots of tea and lay tray which consists of sandwiches of bread and dripping or paste; then at 9 o'clock ring bell and the girls come to fetch it, then at 9.30 clear away and get to bed. After washing, getting undressed and in bed it is about 10 o'clock."

I asked Mary what other servants worked regularly at this house, and I was informed by her that there were only Mrs. Willis, the cook, and another girl who had been there for only a short time. Mrs. Willis appeared to be a reliable type of person. I read to her the list I have just read to the House and asked her whether it was correct. She replied, "Quite correct," and added that no young girl should be expected to do so much and such hard work. Mary had been sent by the magistrates to this hostel to do canteen work and she told me that if she could do the serving and do the extra kitchen work she would be happy to do it and could manage it. This girl had been sent to the hostel to do work fitting for one so young—canteen work—but having been got there, she was exploited and had to do work which was equivalent to adult hard labour. The Home Secretary in a letter to me frankly said:

"She was certainly overworked during the first fortnight."

I can assure the House that it was not only during the first fortnight that this girl was overworked; it was right up to the time the Home Secretary's attention was drawn to this case. At this hostel Mary took the place of a girl who had come from the same remand home as she had. This girl, who was having V.D. treatment in the local hospital, was dismissed from this same Y.W.C.A. hostel, because she was discovered with a lorry driver in her bedroom and I am informed that all she would say afterwards was, "They have driven me to it again."

The circumstances of these two girls who followed each other to this particular hostel convey a very ugly impression that these wretched children were just farmed out for sweated labour and that the treatment they received was calculated to make these young and susceptible girls into confirmed prostitutes. Even if we were to discount entirely the graver aspects of this case, what an extraordinary lack of human psychology has come to light? Is this the way our child delinquency system encourages a girl to regain her self-respect? Certainly this juvenile Mary Magdalen has not been so fortunate in the inspiration to make good as was the older Biblical Mary Magdalen.

On the day Mary was charged about 30 other girls were up for the same sort of offence. One wonders how many of these and hundreds like them are receiving such soul-destroying treatment as Mary received. What kind of system is it that enables such a system to go unnoticed? It must be wrong if such cases can come to light where there is no adequate continuity of surveillance when a child delinquent leaves London. Had the probation officers responsible visited Mary in the country, or had they even got the local probation officer to visit her these unsatisfactory conditions would have been found out—at least it is to be hoped so. Further, it might have been discovered that the first warden of the hostel was quite willing that these two girls should be given late night passes. Incidentally, the first warden of the hostel, who is no longer there, and who was chosen by the Y.W.C.A., left under a cloud. She was in the habit of having a man in her room and bringing drink into the hostel, which, as hon. Members know, is contrary to all Y.W.C.A. regulations. So, one way and another, this did not seem quite a suitable place for the well-being of young girls from a remand home, and they would not have stayed there if the probation officers had been carrying out their duties properly. It may be that probation officers in these days have too much to do, but that excuse does not do away with the bad conditions. It is not without some significance that when I asked the St. Marylebone chief probation officer for an appointment, I was told that she could not manage it that day and that, in any case, before she saw me, she would first have to get the permission of the Home Office, as she was employed by them.

I would like to know whether it is a Home Office instruction that a Member of Parliament cannot, without first getting Home Office permission, see one of his constituency's probation officers about one of his own constituents? Here is the sequel. Soon after I gave notice of my intention to raise this matter in the House, Mary was whisked away from this deplorable hostel, and what she dreaded came to pass. She came before the court again the day before yesterday. The magistrate sent her back to her mother. And that is the story of Mary, a 15-year-old delinquent. It is possible that good may come out of evil and that Mary and her sad story may be the means of making this House and the Home Office come to the conclusion that if these deplorable things can happen to one young first offender, they can happen to hundreds, and that we had better make sure about this and have an investigation into the whole matter of juvenile delinquency.

There is only one more word I desire to say. I very much regret to have to say it, but the Home Office is now blaming Mary's mother. Goodness alone knows how that helps Mary. In a letter to me the Home Office says:

"One of the difficulties in this case has been the mother's attitude since her second marriage. She refuses to allow Mary to stay with her and does not even want her to be in London."

Of course, the mother did not want the girl to stay in London—and if she was at home, she would be in London—surrounded as she would be by her bad companions, that had caused all the trouble. Subsequently, though, she had her daughter back, realising that the limited control she could exercise over her at home was preferable to the slack and insufficient control of probation officers and the demoralising treatment that her daughter was subjected to outside London. The Home Office letter goes on to say of the mother:

"She refuses to give an address to Mary, or to the probation officer, who are dependent upon telephone calls from the mother for all contact with her."

There is not a word of truth in this. In the first place, Mary knew her mother's address in London all along, and Miss Lawrence, the probation officer acting for Miss May when she was ill, was given the address by her mother when the latter changed her address. Miss Lawrence was, I understand, subsequently transferred to Camberwell, and as Miss May was ill, no wonder there was confusion among the authorities about the mother's address; but how unfair to blame the mother for this. Anyhow, I have reason to know that Miss May was, all along, well aware that the mother worked at the Ministry of Information and could at any time be contacted there. To add insult to injury, the Home Office letter goes on to say:

"If Mary had been cast off by anybody, it was by her mother."

What a thing to say. The mother was sufficiently concerned about her daughter to get into touch with her Member of Parliament. She is a fine type of woman, and, throughout, she has shown the most motherly concern and responsibility for her only daughter. On one occasion the mother telephoned to her daughter at the hostel three times during the week-end, but each time was told that her daughter was not available. That was not so. It was not the mother's fault that she was called up for war work and consequently could not watch her daughter. It is a shame to conscript her and then to blame her, and for the Home Office to "pass the buck" in this mean manner. In conclusion, I trust that in view of what I have told the Home Office they will not attempt to side-track or to brush aside the sum total of what I have conveyed to them to-day, but that this total, together with the recent case of the boy who was birched, will convince the Home Office and will convince this House that the whole system pertaining to juvenile delinquents is rusty, is rotten and should now be overhauled.

The hon. and gallant Member has made a lengthy indictment of the probation service. This matter has been the subject of some correspondence between him and the Home Secretary, to which I shall refer in a few moments. He wrote a long letter to the Home Office about this case on 20th October, but in his speech to-day he has, for the first time, made a number of completely new charges which were not mentioned in that letter. The most serious of those charges, I think, is that the probation officer whom the girl's mother consulted in the middle of May advised the mother to give the girl a good whipping. Surely if my hon. and gallant Friend had investigated this case thoroughly, as he claimed to have done, at the time he wrote to the Home Secretary, he might have made that allegation at the time, so that it could have been investigated and replied to.

I only heard of it since then.

It is extremely difficult for a Minister to stand at this Box thinking that he has had the full case put before him by an hon. Member and then to find that completely new charges are brought forward at the last moment and without notice.

So far as the background of this case is concerned, it is a type of case which is all too numerous at the present time. It is a story of a girl of 15 who has fallen into bad company, who has become what we describe at the Home Office, for lack of any better term, "a good time girl," who has taken to drink and going about with soldiers at all hours of the day and night.

It is a good description, too.

She comes from a very indifferent home. Her mother was a widow who is now living with a man who is already married to somebody else. There is friction, naturally, as there always is in those cases where the daughter has been very devoted to her father, now dead, between the daughter and her mother and the other man, and that is the reason, no doubt, why this girl has got into trouble. She came before an experienced magistrate, who is well known, I should think to some hon. Members, on 1st September. She was sent for a fortnight to a remand home for inquiries to be made. On 15th September she came before the court again. She was put on probation, and what is called a "residence condition" was imposed, arrangements having been made for her to be sent to the Women's Land Army hostel to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred. I do not think he referred to the locality, and evidently he does not wish the hostel to be publicly identified.

That was my idea.

The hon. and gallant Member also referred throughout to the girl as "Mary," but I cannot see any objection to her real Christian name being used in this discussion, because the Christian name is in the correspondence, from which I should like to read one or two passages. Undoubtedly in this case there has been a "slip up" by the probation service. The particular probation officer was ill and was on sick leave for most of the time that this girl was at this Women's Land Army hostel. There is no doubt she ought to have been visited soon after her arrival and kept under continuous supervision by the probation service throughout the period, but the probation officer in question, who is a good officer, was ill or away on sick leave, and, incidentally, her home has been blitzed, which also caused her a certain amount of distraction and trouble. But undoubtedly the supervision in this case was not what we should have liked it to be. I frankly admit that to the House.

I understand that two complaints are made by the hon. and gallant Member. One is that she was not properly supervised and had opportunities at this hostel of getting into further trouble, and the second is that she was overworked while at the hostel. To some extent those two complaints cancel each other out. If this girl was occupied in domestic drudgery for the long hours described by the hon. and gallant Member it is clear that she could have had little opportunity of getting into trouble.

Surely a girl working long hours would seek some distraction afterwards, even though tired.

The hon. Member may take that view, but my own view always has been that people get into more trouble through not having enough to do than through having too much. I will read a passage or two from the letter which my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. and gallant Member on 25th October. My right hon. Friend said:

"The girl has settled down and is happy working under the new warden. The probation officer told her she could, if she wished, move to a hostel in London, but she said emphatically that she wished to remain at—. She hopes to get into the Women's Land Army when she is 16 at Christmas. There have been difficulties in the supervision of this case, and while it is true the girl was not visited before 22nd October, the probation officers were in close touch with the hostel by letter and telephone throughout. Miss May, the probation officer concerned, has been on sick leave during most of the period of the girl's probation, and last week, when she intended to visit the hostel, was bombed out of her flat. Supervision has been carried on by substitutes and by the rest of the probation staff, who were already carrying heavy case loads. You will be aware that replacements and substitutes suitable for this kind of work are hard to find at the present time."

Then there is set out the substance of the girl's own story as to long hours which she worked at this hostel. The girl herself, in a letter which she wrote to the probation officer on 21st September, set out the hours which she worked and said this:

"I have to be in by 9.15 every night when I am off, and so I do not think you need worry about me. I never go out by myself but I am always with the girls. I forgot to tell you that my wages are 17s. 6d. a week with all found. I can eat whatever I like when I like."

That, I think, disposes of the suggestion that the girl was unhappy or was maltreated at this hostel. Undoubtedly the hours of work were too long, but those conditions were remedied, so I am informed, when the warden in charge of the hostel when the girl arrived there was replaced by a new warden on 1st October.

Where in that letter did it say that the girl was happy? I cannot find it.

I thought that was quite a right and proper inference from the quotation which I read to the House from the girl's letter. If the hon. and gallant Member disputes that that was a statement by someone who was happy, we can each form our own opinion about it. My hon. and gallant Friend has taken great interest in this case. He has been to see the hostel. He has seen the girl, and I understand that he interviewed the girl's mother. As a consequence of that, the new warden, against whom I did not understand my hon. and gallant Friend to make any complaint, has definitely stated that she cannot keep the girl in the hostel any longer. That is the reason why the girl was taken to the court once more. As the hostel, where she was residing as part of her probation, would no longer keep her, it became necessary to decide what her future was to be. She was taken before the same magistrate, who put her on probation, on 3rd November, and the condition of residence was discharged, because her mother is now prepared to have the girl living with her at home, which she was not willing to do when this trouble arose.

For good reasons.

It may be for good reasons, but at any rate the attitude of the mother has now changed. The hostel where she was working is no longer prepared to keep her, although she herself seems—

Why? Do they want to get another girl to do the same kind of work?

On account of the difficulty of supervising her adequately and on account, as I understand it, of the visit of my hon. and gallant Friend and the amount of publicity which, in the view of the warden, this case was attracting. It is to be hoped that this girl will be better treated at home in the future than she was at the time when she got into trouble. She is evidently a very nice girl. The probation officer has made very good reports upon her, and so far as we are concerned we are most anxious to do all we can to assist her on to the right road again. The probation service undoubtedly, as I have explained in this particular case—

Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say at an earlier stage—a fact that was not disclosed by the hon. and gallant Member—that the mother was living with a paramour, a man not her husband, and is it not apparent from the report of the probation service, that a good deal of trouble was caused by those home conditions?

That, of course, is most clearly so. A very large proportion of the girls who get into trouble in this way come from broken homes. The mother, who was not willing to have the girl at home before is now willing to do so. The magistrate has consequently discharged the residence condition, and the girl has gone home again. I admit that the probation service in this case has not functioned with the efficiency which we all expect of it. It is an isolated example in my experience. I have the greatest admiration for the work of this service: I have seen a good deal of it, and I think it is unfortunate in this instance. I do not at all resent my hon. and gallant Friend having raised this case in the House, but I think it would be a great mistake if hon. Members thought that slips of this nature were common with the probation service, because that is not my experience. Nor do I believe it is the experience of hon. Members generally. Having said that, I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied that, as a rule, these things do not happen and that in this particular case no great harm resulted and that, as a result of the case being raised, it will lead to the greatest possible vigilance being taken to see that nothing of this sort occurs again.

I do not want to make any difficulties for my right hon. Friend at all, but I think the hon. and gallant Member did say that the probation officer refused an interview with him and replied that there was a general instruction that Home Office permission had to be obtained.

That is a new point to me, and I have not heard it before. I did not know that the hon. and gallant Member had had any difficulty in getting an inter-with with the probationer officer. As I understood, there was no blank refusal but merely a statement that it was inconvenient to see her on a particular day.

No, Sir, it was that I had to get the permission of the Home Office to see her. Is that so?

No, I know of no instruction to that effect at all. I will certainly look into the matter to see that there is no instruction. It is obviously of the greatest importance that Members of Parliament should be able to make contact with the probation officers in cases of this character, and I will certainly see that an instruction to that effect is, if necessary, sent out.

I would like to know whether the institution to which reference has been made has been approved by the Home Office. The home is of a character to which we are responsible for sending young persons who may not have committed any crime at all. In this case it may be said that she committed a crime by getting drunk, but I would point out that people can be sent to the homes who have committed no crime. The only thing that can be said is that there is no effective control over the girls by their parents. We ought to be satisfied that the homes to which such children can be sent are homes to which any children ought to be sent. The evidence in this case would appear to indicate that the supervision in this house must have been exceptionally bad. The Home Office cannot escape blame for any lack of their own supervision of the homes to which children are sent.

It is all very well to come along now and say, "Well, we agree about this isolated case." Have we any evidence that it is an isolated case? Frankly, I am not at all sure that it is. I handed in a Question on this very matter, and I hope that it will receive discussion in the new Session. It draws attention to facts in connection with children who are sent to institutions of this kind, and to the handicap that it is to them in after life. I hope the Question will appear on the Paper in the new Session for the consideration of the Prime Minister. Here is the case of a home presumably considered to be satisfactory by the Home Office. I see that magistrates in the various police courts have been informed that this, among others, is the type of home to which young children can be sent with the approval of the Home Office. We ought to have some inquiry. I honestly believe that the Home Office ought to have inquired more than they appear to have done up to now. We have been told, and it has not been denied, that another girl was able to take men into her bedroom at night. We have been told that the hours of labour are disgracefully long. We can only assume that the Home Office either did not employ responsible people—I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with that, of course—or the people who were responsible for the actual administration did not make any inquiry about it. I should like to know how long those conditions have been in operation in this home. We have been told that it is a Young Women's Christian Association home.

No, it is a Women's Land Army hostel.

But run by the Y.W.C.A. That is my point.

It is a home for Land Army girls run by the Young Women's Christian Association. I do not think they have anything to be proud of. When young girls of 15 can be sent there and when a number of Land Army girls are living there day by day, one wonders what kind of influence is being brought on them. It is a home to which Land Army girls and juvenile delinquents are sent. It may be that there are even more girls than that, not only Land Army girls but other juvenile delinquents, some having committed criminal acts and some net. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Has he any knowledge of that? Has inquiry been made as to who goes to that home?

I do not know of any juvenile delinquents at the home.

Was not the statement made in a previous case of somebody being sent in similar circumstances to the home and she was found with some men in her bedroom? Is not that the case?

If it was alleged that the other girl was a juvenile delinquent, it is a new allegation.

It may be a new allegation, but surely it is one that ought to be inquired into. If conditions like that exist, will the right hon. Gentleman promise this House that inquiry will be made as a consequence of this case, and if such an inquiry can be held it will be not only into this hostel but into others, periodical inquiries, so that we can be informed? There should be an inquiry not only at the time a home is certified by the Home Office as a suitable place but periodically during its continuance as a Home Office home. May we have an assurance that an inquiry will be made that will be satisfactory to the public generally that girls will be well looked after?

In this case it has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not like it, that it was really the fault of this girl's mother. He went out of his way to give a public advertisement of the conditions under which the girl's mother is living. I do not think it is fair to the mother, and I resent it. Everyone will read in the newspapers or in Hansard the conditions under which that home is run, and it will soon get round where it is and people will know. All the Land Army girls will know.

Both the hon. and gallant Member who raised it and I have been extremely careful not to mention any names or places, so that no unfortunate publicity will attach to them.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will know that is not so. Does he not think that the Land Army girls will talk? Does he think that they will be as astute as he has been in withholding names? Frankly, I do not. I think it is bound to be made public, to the detriment of the family concerned. I think it was rather mean to mention the conditions under which the mother was living, and as to trying to blame those conditions for the girl's offence, if he was right in that, surely that is not the type of home to send the girl back to. That is the obvious thing for one to think. The right hon. Gentleman stands up and tells us that the real trouble was the home, that the girl never had decent conditions in the home, and then he went on to tell us that in future the home conditions will be better than the institution to which we had to take her. The magistrate has decided to send her home. Will there be any supervision of her now? If the home will be of the character that the right hon. Gentleman said, what is to be the future of this girl, and why was she sent home, if the home is so bad?

The hon. Gentleman must be careful. He is criticising the verdict of the judge, and we are not allowed to do that.

I should be very sorry to do that, because I have the highest regard for the judges and their judgments generally. I am thinking more of the girl than I am of the judge. The judge sent her back, and one would imagine it was on some assurance of the Home Office that the conditions of the home were now improved. If conditions were so good that she should be sent back there, I do not like the way the matter was handled at an earlier period. I hope that, as a consequence of the discussion of this unsavoury case and the handling of it by the Home Office, it will not be possible for such a case to come before this House for a long time to come.

I rise to speak, because for a good many years I have been a member of the council of the Clarke Hall Fellowship, in memory of Sir William Clarke Hall, who started the probation system in this country. Before the war we were short of probation officers. Probation can only be an effective thing if there is real supervision. The idea that probation is letting someone off with a caution is the greatest possible error. Probation cannot be effective if the probation officer has so many cases to deal with that each case cannot get real supervision. Apart from that, even before the war there was a shortage of remand homes and places where delinquents could be sent under really satisfactory conditions. Some answers to written Questions which the right hon. Gentleman's Department kindly gave me this week show that the situation has got worse during the war. Naturally, the number of probation officers has tended to decrease. There is not the same number of young people coming into the service and there is a natural wastage through marriage. There are many more broken homes now than there were before. Fathers are away on service, mothers are working, and children, even those from 11 to 14 years, spend a great deal of time in the streets and get into undesirable company. Before the war, under normal conditions of home life that kind of thing would not have occurred. There is a large return to London of children who had previously been evacuated. There is an inflationary tendency, in that there is more money coming to young people who can earn it, and there are all the problems connected with the presence of British and Allied troops who are also cut off from their home life—some of the Allied troops having a very large amount of money to spend.

The situation now is, in every aspect, worse than it was before the war. I hope this Debate will be an occasion for the Home Office to go very carefully into both the immediate and the future question. These girls are the mothers of the future. This is a country with a small population, dependent on quality, and it will be well worth while to divert a small number of really good women and men into these probation and like services in order to deal with the trouble which we all know is going on to-day. After the war we want to have a probation service much better paid than it is, with better prospects, so that when demobilisation comes, we can attract women who have been officers in the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., and who have had experience and have been successful in the handling of girls. Similarly we want men with fine Service records who have had experience of dealing with personel problems to enter into that service. We need to look into the question of more remand homes and more approved schools. I hope that the Home Office will add to that an inspectorate to go round and keep friendly contact with these institutions and keep them informed of the situation in each place. I hope they will suggest to hon. Members who have approved schools or remand homes in their constituencies, to keep in touch with those institutions. It would be a valuable link for the Home Secretary and a useful piece of work for Members to do. Finally, there are some very good people, now on the retired list, who could be brought back. The most outstanding woman who ever dealt with the question of delinquency, Miss Barker, is now retired. I think people like her and others might well be brought back and I hope this Debate will provide an occasion on which all these questions can be reconsidered.

One point which emerges from this Debate has not been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. There may be some apprehension in the minds of hon. Members regarding the excessive hours of work in this hostel. I would be glad if he would tell us whether he has any control over the hours of work in those hostels generally, and whether there is any regular inspection. Presumably, those homes are in receipt of some grants from public funds. It may well be that they are not within the scope of his Department. It may be that the Ministry of Labour and National Service is responsible, but will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire, and see whether there is any control over the hours of employment in these places? With regard to the observations which my hon. Friend has just made, I should like to join him in his tribute to the probation service. On the point of the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) about a barrier being placed between probation officers and Members of Parliament, in my experience there has been the greatest possible access and every available help has been given in every case in which I have taken an interest. Could the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the Home Office are trying to increase the number of probation officers? Perhaps he will be good enough to deal with the point about the hours of labour.

I would like to join the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) in his desire that probation officers and services should be investigated with a view to trying to get some people who have retired and who are experienced in this work back, as various other Government Departments have brought back retired officers into their service and found their work very valuable in this kind of war. I am profoundly disturbed by some of the revelations in this case. Here was a young girl of 15 years out at late hours or early hours in the morning, drunk and in company with soldiers. She would be in considerable moral danger and would rightly be detained, but I wonder whether the men whose company she was in were also detained. That may be a new factor in the situation, but it is one which ought to be taken into consideration. There is far too much of this going on at the present time, and social workers, both men and women, are deeply disturbed by such occurrences, which I believe are a regular feature of our large cities.

I too feel that a protest must be made about the long hours and the exploitation of this girl of tender years. I feel that this girl has been the victim of a series of misfortunes in so far as the type of home from which she came, the lack of parental control, the association with undesirable people, are concerned, and then to be sent to a home of this kind, where evidently there is no real supervision. It may have been due to a breakdown in the probation service, but these facts disturb us. They are lamentable. My right hon. Friend said that no details had been given in this case as to the whereabouts of this particular Land Army home, but I have ears, and I certainly seemed to get the location of the particular home, and I know it very well. I am surprised to hear of incidents of men being able to get into the bedrooms of the women residents there. The place is in an isolated district, but it would never have been possible if it was under proper supervision. With these revelations I say that a place of that kind is not a fit and proper place to send a child like this, who is charged with a particular offence and who needs real guidance and help if she is to be put on the road to a better life and to have a future.

I am not going to enter into the merits and importance of the statements or the case put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid), but in view of these new facts I think the Home Office would be well advised to have an investigation into this case, because these cases are disturbing, particularly in regard to what has taken place or is alleged to have taken place. Information has been given to this House in regard to the general position of delinquency among children. I feel very disturbed about the whole position and the revelations in this case, and I trust the Home Office will give us an inquiry and will be able to take action which will make these cases a thing of the past and which will ensure that children who are delinquents and who need help and guidance, particularly our young girls of 15 and 16, are to get the proper kind of treatment and help which will enable them to become in the future, by training and other methods, really good citizens. I must add, finally, that I feel very unhappy that after all the statements that have been made and the accusations against the girl's home, she should have been returned to that home. Therefore, in view of all these facts and disturbing revelations, I hope the Home Office will have an inquiry into the whole position.

I will only detain the House for a few moments, but there are three questions I would like to put. Firstly, is there a list supplied to justices of various homes and hostels to which these junior delinquents are sent? Secondly, is this list kept under constant revision, as conditions may obviously vary from time to time if the wardens change and so on? Thirdly, is this list published, and can it be easily obtained? I would just add this word on the general problem of which this is an example. I am probably talking to the converted in pressing the Home Office to encourage in every possible way the development of youth clubs. I think we should spend more money than we are spending in assisting youth clubs and youth organisations. Since I have mentioned money, I think it is a remarkable, creditable and very noteworthy fact, which I hope will be given publicity not only in this country but abroad, that this House of Commons yesterday spent six minutes in passing a Vote of Credit for £1,250,000,000. To-day it has spent, rightly and usefully spent, nearly one and a half hours in investigating one case of a single individual. That, I think, reflects credit on the operation of Parliament in time of war. I hope that note will be taken of that elsewhere.

I should like to ask one question, not because I wish to cavil or quibble about what may seem a minor point, but in order to get all the facts of this very distressing case out. I should like to ask exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said, as I understood, that the new warden of the hostel had sent the girl away because of the publicity arising out of this case. Surely, as he himself said, both the hon. Member who raised the matter and the right hon. Gentleman himself were most careful not to mention any names or places. Will he explain what he meant when he said that it was because of the publicity that the warden, against whom there is no reflection at all, thought it better to send the girl away, back to this unsatisfactory home? I hope that, because of the numerous expressions of concern in various parts of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the privilege which, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I think he has, to ask leave of the House to speak again, and to answer these questions fully.

I am not sure whether the leave of the House is necessary to enable me to speak again on the Adjourn- ment, but if it is, I will ask for it. A number of points have been put. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), who has had to leave the Chamber. He has an extensive knowledge of the probation service. Of course, we want to maintain, and if possible to increase, the efficiency of the probation service. It is difficult to do so in time of war. We want to get young people into the service; we find that they handle these boys and girls better than middle-aged or elderly people do. At present there are very heavy demands for persons who are of a suitable age to undertake probation work, but we will certainly see whether there are any temporary relaxations of our rule about recruitment which could be made with a view to strengthening the service.

And increasing the salaries of probation officers? They are lamentably low.

Note will be taken of what the hon. Member says.

It is better to take on none at all unless you are going to get the best. It is a very important service. Do not get somebody just to fill a gap.

I am not sure whether, if we aim at the perfection which the hon. Member desires, we shall be able to get an adequate service. We have to look round and do what we can in the circumstances. We are doing all we can on the other points, such as the provision of remand homes and approved schools. The number of approved schools has been increased by 33 per cent. during the war, which is not a bad record, in view of the difficulty of securing accommodation and equipment in present conditions.

The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) asked whether there was any control over the hours of labour in these institutions, hostels and so forth. So far as I am aware, there is no statutory control over hours of domestic service in this type of institution, but I will look into the point. As to whether it would be possible, if these institutions are in receipt of Government grants, for any conditions to be imposed in regard to hours worked in them, I will look into that.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) said—and I think we are all in agreement with her—that this girl was a victim of misfortune, and that this case ought to be investigated. Of course it will be. We have investigated the statements which the hon. and gallant Member put in writing to my right hon. Friend. We have not yet had any chance of investigating the new statements which he made to-day, some of which were important, and some of which were very damaging should they turn out to be true, and I welcome the opportunity of a thorough investigation by the Home Secretary into the allegations, and such an investigation will be undertaken.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) asked whether magistrates in juvenile courts had available to them a list of suitable homes for girls in need of care and protection, whether that list was kept up to date, and whether that list was published. I rather think, speaking without any official guidance on this matter, that what usually happens is that the probation officer tries to find a suitable home and that it would be the duty of the probation officer to see that it is a suitable home before making a recommendation. I do not think that there is any published list. I imagine that a good many private persons who have no children of their own take care of girls of this character. Clearly it would be undesirable for the names of people, who undertake this work, to be published, but my hon. and gallant Friend's points will be noted and, if possible, we will make use of them. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) asked why the girl was being allowed to return to an unsatisfactory home.

Not quite. I asked the reason for the statement about the publicity.

Yes. The people who find homes for these boys and girls do it on a voluntary basis. Nobody can compel them to keep these boys and girls if they do not wish to do so. If they find a boy or girl to be difficult, and decide to throw their hands in, a new home has to be found. That, I understand, is what occurred in this case. The new warden thought that this girl and her case were likely to give some bother. Possibly she wished to avoid publicity being drawn to her particular hostel. Quite justifiably, in my opinion, she said to the probation officer, "Please take this girl away." The probation service brought this girl to court again. The girl had been away for two months or more, and the magistrate, in her wisdom, decided to allow the girl to go back home. I do not think we should challenge that decision without further knowledge. The statements which have been made in the Debate will be carefully examined, and full investigation made into all the circumstances.

I am very glad that there is going to be an investigation. I would just ask whether, when that investigation is completed, I could be made aware of the fact and of the findings. In the meantime, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and frankness in this Debate?

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the possibility of enlarging the probation service and of helping these people after these unfortunate things have happened to them. I think it is far better to try to prevent these young girls falling into vice, if it is possible to do so. I do not believe it is a sound principle to legislate for immorality, but we all know that at present the West End of London is riddled with this type of thing. Young girls of 15, 16 and 17 are constantly being seduced and their whole lives set on the wrong path. If the right hon. Gentleman could strengthen the hands of the police and so on to deal with this kind of thing, I am sure it would do far more good than trying to cure the complaint, as it were, after so much damage has been done.