I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "passing," and to insert "commencement."

There are four Amendments on the Order Paper which really all hang together. It might be convenient, therefore, if we discuss them together, as I do not think it is possible to deal with them separately. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that new regulations may be made about the method of verifying applications for cremation. The purpose of that is to do away with the need for a statutory declaration in this connection. Of course, the regulations cannot be made until the Bill becomes law, and under the procedure laid down in the principal Act they do not become effective until 40 days after they have been laid before Parliament.

The result of that, of course, would mean that under the Bill as drafted there would be a gap between the time of its becoming law and of the new regulations coming into force. During that gap there would be at least a doubt about the legal position regarding verification of applications. It would not be certain whether the existing regulations would still be effective having regard to the fact that the Bill would be on the Statute Book, because there could be no new regulations to take their place. These Amendments are designed to cover that possible gap.

In the first place, it is proposed that the procedure of the 1902 Act, by which regulations do not come into force until 40 days after they are laid, should be altered so as to become the normal procedure under which regulations come into effect immediately subject to negative resolution procedure of the House. In the second place, it is proposed to provide that the rest of the Bill should not come into force until three months after the Bill passes into law.

The result of that will be that there will be time to make and to lay regulations and that such regulations will be capable of coming into effect on the same day that the Bill becomes an Act. As regards the Amendments, the first two on page 1 of the Bill are paving Amendments, that on page 2, line 6, changes the procedure regarding the regulations, and that on page 2, line 36, delays the date of commencement of the Act.

I am pleased, as are many of my hon. Friends, that the weaknesses in the original draft of the Bill were discovered in time to, make the necessary changes on Report. The proposed Amendments have our whole-hearted support.

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

In view of the fact that there are two Bills to follow this one, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House, except for a few minutes, on this Motion. I have every confidence that the House will approve of the Bill being read the Third time.

A number of people have felt that the Act of 1902 was getting out-of-date, and the Home Secretary appointed an Inter-Departmental Committee to go into the question in May, 1947. A good deal of research work was undertaken and many of the proposals of that Committee have now been embodied in the Bill.

I should like to say that I have received from the officials of the Home Office every assistance in the preparation of the Bill. I am very grateful to them for their kindness and patience in helping me in my amateur attempt to produce a Bill of this kind. I am also indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his kindness in assisting me during the various stages of the Bill. I am sure that his help has expedited the passage of the Bill and has resulted in a very much better Bill than was originally drafted. I am very pleased to have been associated with him during the various stages of the Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

Although it is a small Bill I think that it will serve a very useful purpose. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on having introduced this Bill, and on having piloted it so successfully through its stages up to the Third Reading. I hope that it will receive a sympathetic passage in another place, and soon be on the Statute Book.

I have read the Bill with care, and I found it interesting. A Clause which, think, is important is Clause 3 (1), which reads:

"The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations prescribing the fees which may be charged in 'respect of the issue of any medical certificate required under section seven of the Cremation Act, 1902."

I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill. Therefore, I hope that I may be forgiven if I now ask the Joint Under-Secretary a few questions, and express some of my views on this particular part of the Bill. I have read the OFFICIAL. REPORT of the Committee stage, and I gather from that that my professional colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) were then not very happy about the form of words used in this subsection.

They held the view, which I share with them, that it would be desirable for the Home Secretary to state what should be the maximum fee for medical certificates required for cremation. I think that the maximum fee should be stated to protect the public from being overcharged. At the same time, while there should be, in my submission, an upper limit which cannot be exceeded, I think that doctors should be permitted to charge what they choose within that upper limit. Some doctors may wish to charge reduced fees in certain cases. There may be cases of poor families when the doctor wishes to charge no fee at all. I think that it should be left to the doctor's discretion as to what the fee should be within the maximum prescribed. I should like the assurance of the Under-Secretary that this will be done.

The next point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House concerns the word, "may." The subsection states that the Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing these fees. Is it possible for us to have an assurance that the Home Secretary will prescribe the maximum fees? I ask that because I think that the public should be defended against any possibility of excessive charges.

A short time ago, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, complaining about the high cost of dying. He wrote about the price of coffins and the cost of burial or cremation and went so far as to ask whether it would not be possible for an inquiry to be held into the general expenses of a funeral. Certainly, heavy expenses do fall on the bereaved. For the sake of the bereaved and also for the good name of the medical profession, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the maximum fee will be prescribed to prevent any possibility of exorbitant fees being demanded. If this upper limit is not fixed, I fear that there is some danger of excessive demands being made.

I wish to draw attention to a case which is not immediately related to the Bill but it will illustrate the importance of prescribing a maximum fee. I had a letter dated 5th May, 1952, from a schoolmaster friend of mine who wrote that for two or three years the proprietor of a small garage had been suffering from chest trouble for which his doctor had been treating him. The patient understood he was suffering from bronchial asthma. As his condition was deteriorating, the doctor arranged for him to be seen by a consultant, who advised an operation.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this has not much to do with the Bill, but I mention it so that the House can appreciate the background of the case before I draw attention to the matter of fees. The patient was told that if he had his operation under the National Health Service he would have to wait 18 months for a bed. The man therefore decided to be treated as a private patient, and he underwent his operation. The letter I received from my friend says:

"What infuriates me is that he has had to pay altogether well over £200, and a very fat slice went to the surgeon."

The hon. Gentleman is getting too far beyond the scope allowed on the Third Reading of a Bill. We are dealing with cremation. I do not think an operation necessarily results in cremation.

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that an operation does not necessarily result in cremation. I merely mention this case to illustrate the importance of fixing a maximum fee for professional services, and I hope I have succeeded in making that point.

I understand that a scale of fees is laid down for solicitors, and so there is nothing unprofessional or unethical about it. Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the maximum fee for a cremation certificate will be prescribed by the Home Secretary? I assume that in deciding upon the fee the Minister will consult representatives of the medical profession. I have already stressed the importance of prescribing a fee in order to protect the public, and I urge that the figure should be a fair and reasonable one in order to do justice to the medical profession.

Doctors who fill in medical certificates for cremation undertake a heavy responsibility. Two certificates have to be completed before the form goes to the medical referee. One certificate is completed by the medical practitioner who has been in charge of the case and the second by a medical practitioner who has had at least five years' experience in his profession.

The first certificate may be filled in by a doctor who has been qualified for only a short time. While the responsibility in that case is heavy, the responsibility in connection with the second certificate is far greater. It might be worth while for the Minister to consider prescribing two fees, the fee for the second certificate being higher than that for the first. I am sure the Minister will not make up his mind on this alone but will consult representatives of the medical profession.

I wonder if the Minister has yet come to an agreement with representatives of the medical profession about the size of the fees? Have consultations started, and, if they have, has any decision yet been reached? I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would be good enough to answer my questions.

Part of the speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) was really the penultimate paragraph before we come to the Bill. It is a pity that the final paragraph has to be written in the final journey of life that brings us to the Bill, but there it is.

The passage of the Bill through the House is a tribute to the procedure of the House. We have had interesting discussions upon it. A sympathetic Joint Under-Secretary has shepherded the Bill through, and the result is that it is here in good time. I hope it will have a speedy passage through another place.

Clause 1 is a very good Clause. It is right to have it placed clearly on record that the Minister of Local Housing and Government must certify the siting of such buildings as these. They must be put in the right place and it must be the over-riding authority of the Minister responsible for planning to see that they are properly sited. That part of the Bill is particularly good, and the sooner it comes into operation the better it will be from every point of view.

I support the hon. Member for Batley and Morley in the hope that some means will be found of keeping the cost as reasonable as possible. Whether or not it can be done by incorporating a maximum I do not know, but I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will treat the suggestion with sympathy. We want to be assured that the cost of cremation will be such that it will encourage people to take advantage of it. If it can be done by putting in a maximum price, that will be the easier and simpler way. If that cannot be done, I should like my hon. Friend to use his powers to see that prices are reasonable.

We congratulate all who have taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill and express the hope that the Bill will soon be in full operation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on the success which has attended his efforts to get the Bill this far on its journey towards the Statute Book. It is a subject in which he has taken an interest for a considerable time. The fact that the previous Act on the subject was passed 15 years ago indicates that there was some need for the law to receive attention.

I am particularly glad that this Measure has had so easy a passage through the House, because it is the result of the deliberations of a Committee which I appointed when I was Home Secretary, and I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by Mr. Strutt, one of the officials of the Home Office, who acted as Chairman of the Committee and who brought to this task all the tact and discretion for which he is well known, at any rate inside the Home Office. I congratulate him upon having found a Member of Parliament, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, willing and ready to undertake the task of putting the Measure on the Statute Book.

I hope there will be no difficulty with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) about Clause 3. Surely there are many scales of fees which are prescribed and which say, "A sum not exceeding. …" I sincerely hope that that may be the case with this Measure. My hon. Friend said Solicitors were allowed to charge prescribed fees in certain cases. When I was a young man there was a story about a solicitor who was charged with making unprofessional charges, it being alleged that he had not charged as much as the prescribed scale authorised. It is said that his answer was, "I took as much as the fellow had, and surely I could not have done anything more professional than that." I hope that when my hon. Friend's profession see the maximum charges they will not follow a similar line of conduct.

Undoubtedly, the subject of cremation deserves more public attention than it sometimes gets. One must face the fact that there are certain people who have strong religious scruples on this matter, but clearly, for others, this is undoubtedly a very sanitary method of dealing with the problems which death creates in the community. I know of nothing more melancholy than to go through a churchyard which has been disused for several years. It is almost a cynical reflection on one's attitude towards human life and people who have lived in the past to see the neglected and overgrown state of some of these places which were once acres where the affections and memories of people lingered.

I hope that the passing of this Measure will lead to an extension of the practice of cremation among those sections of the community which are not inhibited by religious scruples. If my hon. Friend's Bill does anything in that direction, I am sure it will be of benefit to the community at large. I congratulate him on the success he has had, and I sincerely hope that this Measure will reach the Statute Book.

I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). In the course of the Committee stage, I said that it was certainly the desire of the Government that the fees which were to be prescribed should be maximum fees. The question was raised in Committee, and I have checked up on the point; and I can assure the House that the fees will be maximum fees and that it will be open to a doctor to charge a lower fee in appropriate circumstances.

The hon. Member for Batley and Morley asked for an assurance that the Home Secretary would implement Clause 3 by prescribing. I think that on a moment's reflection he will realise that it is necessary to make the Clause permissive, because it is obviously desirable, if possible, not to compel doctors but to reach agreement with them as to what will be an appropriate maximum fee to be charged. Indeed, the hon. Member himself indicated that when he asked whether the Home Secretary would consult the doctors before prescribing the fees.

The position is that discussions have been started, but clearly it is not possible for them to be brought to fruition until the Bill is on the Statute Book. I hope and believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement and that no regulations will be necessary, therefore, because the agreement will be binding and satisfactory to everybody concerned.

Before parting with the Bill, may I say that I agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). In particular, I want to join with him in congratulating the officials who made this Bill possible and also the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves), who was the promoter of the Bill and who has piloted it through with such skill and grace, if those words are applicable to such a Bill as this. Perhaps I might add that it may be appropriate that the last words on the Bill in the House should be uttered by the Member who includes Golders Green in his constituency.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from the beginning, to "such," in line 2, on page 3, and insert:

(2) Where under the foregoing provisions of this Act the standard rent for any premises would be a rent or amount such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section one of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949—

(a) the said provisions shall have effect subject to the said section one, and

(b) those provisions shall not be treated as

When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading, this subsection was extremely complicated, and that was the subject of comment from all sides of the House. In Committee upstairs, an effort was made to change the form of words, and they were changed after a Division; but the new form of words is not felt to be completely satisfactory even by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in Committee.

Since that time I have been endeavouring to find a form of words which would be agreeable both to the promoters of the Bill and to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) who moved the Amendment upstairs. I may say, at this stage, that I have had a letter from the hon. Member for Henley whom, I regret to say is in hospital, and in it he states that he agrees with the form of words which I now propose. He adds that he is sorry that he cannot be here himself.

The hon. Member for Henley and the Solicitor-General got together and, with the aid of the Government draftsmen, they have produced a form of words on the Order Paper which I think is a very much simpler form. It does not in any way alter what we intended to do originally, but it is very much simpler than the form originally in the Bill.

For the sake of those people who would like to know what the Amendment is about, I will explain that it does two things. First of all, it makes quite sure that those who come under the Bill shall have the right to go before a rent tribunal, in appropriate circumstances, and to have a reasonable rent determined, in the same way as those who come under the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949.

The other part is to make sure that Section 1 (7) of that Act, which says that for rent restricted in any other way except by the Rent Acts the right to go before a rent tribunal, does not apply. I hope, in all the circumstances, that the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I was one of those who supported the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) when the matter was carried to a Division. In the original draft of the Bill, the intention was of the highest, but the wording was such that even those who had practised for many years at the law had no idea what it meant. The hon. Member for Henley and the Solicitor-General got together and have produced something which lawyers can understand, even if hon. Members versed in other professions cannot. We have got as near as we possibly can to carrying out the excellent intentions of the Bill by producing a form of words which can, after much thought, be understood.

As one of those who criticised the Clause as originally framed, I desire only to say that I did not understand what it meant and that I do not think many people did. I think I understand it now. I agree that the words in the Amendment make the Clause very much better.

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

I would take this opportunity of thanking those hon. Members on all sides of the House who have done their best to get the Bill through. I would particularly thank the Government, without whose help it would have been impossible to draft the Bill or to have got it to its present stage.

The Bill had its Second Reading in February, and I am now sure that it is required, to judge only from the number of letters I have received. I had one just before I came into the Chamber, saying that the evils that we hope to do away with by the Bill are taking place and asking various questions about the provisions of the Bill. I hope that those provisions will meet these cases. If, as a Private Member of this House, one can carry through a Bill which remedies what people feel to be injustices, I feel sure that the House of Commons is doing its duty.

I beg to second the Motion.

11.47 a.m.

This is a very useful Bill, but I regret exceedingly that it is limited in its scope in that it does not apply to the direct tenants of the Crown and to Government Departments. I only mention that point in passing because we had a discussion upon it during the debate on Second Reading, when the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) opposed that view as expressed by me. At a later stage in the proceedings in Committee he mentioned that a Government Department had acted in a certain way about a block of flats in Kensington, and he appeared to be converted from the view he had expressed on Second Reading.

There was some discussion in Committee on the effect of Clause 1 (3), and the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said he was very interested in the criticisms that were made and that he would look into the matter. I criticised that subsection as entirely unnecessary, but it still remains in the Bill. Before we leave the Bill, I would say that it would appear that the subsection is inserted ex abundanti cautela. I am still of the view that is entirely unnecessary.

My final word is that the Amendment which was moved on the Report stage to Clause 2 was to take the place of the very complicated wording which represented Clause 2 as originally drafted. I am glad that that complicated language has gone. I will only point out that it is particularly important in a Bill of this nature, which adds to the mass of legislation in the field of the law of landlord and tenant, that what is enacted should be couched in the most simple language. I hope that when further legislation is brought forward every effort will be made to achieve that purpose. The result of the Amendment is to put the Bill in much simpler form. That is very commendable and ought to be encouraged. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, for introducing a Bill which does a considerable amount of good.

I heartily endorse the sentiments so ably expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), in putting forward a plea for simpler wording in complicated Bills. The Bill is possibly one of the most complicated and difficult for a layman to understand, although it is short when compared with some of the major legislation on the subject. The hon. Member, who is a professional lawyer, did not understand what the Bill meant. Perhaps he now appreciates the difficulties of poor unfortunate laymen like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), when we enter into these complicated discussions.

The Government gave this Bill its benevolent approval on the Second Reading, and it does so again on the Third Reading. It expresses a simple and worthy intention which has the unanimous support of the Government, the Opposition, and almost every other thinking person. It extends the protection of the Rent Restriction Act to a worthy class of people who ought to be protected against one or two unscrupulous people who are taking advantage of this loophole in the law.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, who had the good fortune to be lucky in the Ballot and to use it to such good purpose? If I may say so, he displayed great skill upstairs in Committee. He was surrounded by lawyers who, while they are profuse in the advice they give, rarely reach unanimity. It is difficult, when one lawyer interprets in a certain way and subsequently another lawyer interprets in a precisely different way, but my hon. Friend battled his way through. His constituents will benefit by this Measure and they ought to be grateful to him.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to add:

(2) For the purposes of section sixty-one of the principal Act (which defines the expression "in need of care or protection ") where a child or young person is for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1944 to 1948, of compulsory school age and a registered pupil at a school, the fact that he persistently fails to attend at that school, or that he attends thereat with persistent irregularity shall (without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section) be evidence that he is beyond control.

In moving this Amendment I recognise that there was quite a long debate upstairs on this question and that the Committee divided on it with 12 voting "Aye" and 12 voting "No." The purpose of this Amendment is to endeavour to get from the Government assurances that consideration will be given to the point of the Amendment in a future Bill that might be introduced.

Our desire was that truancy from school on the part of children might be regarded in certain circumstances, after a continual absence from school, as coming under the term "in need of care or protection." It has been the experience of many magistrates and members of education committees that some children are habitually absent from school. Yet, as the law stands, many months sometimes elapse before these children are brought before a juvenile court or, alternatively, before their parents are brought before an adult court. Children have suffered considerably because of this delay and many of them have lost valuable days of schooling.

During the Committee stage we endeavoured to get that put right so that such children should be regarded as in need of care and attention and thus could be dealt with almost immediately by juvenile courts. That, briefly, is the purpose of the Amendment. During the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education replied to our contentions in these words:

"The most important point is that there is a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, which will certainly—subject to time and the other limitations of human life—be introduced at the earliest opportunity. The subject is one which has engaged the attention of my right hon. Friend. She is fully conversant with the arguments, and I will make certain that her advisers, and therefore she, are fully conversant with anything which has been or may be said today.

Although I can hardly be in a position here and now—it would be almost a sort of breach of Privilege—to promise that something will be put into the Bill, yet I can say that the possibility of putting in a provision, which I think is the main point before us, has been, is being and will be most carefully considered in connection with a Bill now actually being prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of Education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 29th April, 1952, c. 16-17.]

That half-assurance hardly satisfied us and it was felt that such a promise did not meet what we felt was an urgent matter. The result was that there have been conversations behind the scenes and I understand that the Ministry of Education are now prepared to make suggestions that Section 40 of the Education Act, 1944, might be amended by the introduction of a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill under the auspices of the Ministry of Education.

If the hon. Gentleman who is here this morning representing the Home Office is in a position to speak for the Ministry of Education on this matter, and to assure us that our point will be contained within any such Bill, then I am sure we should be happy to withdraw this Amendment.

The purpose of putting it on the Order Paper was to drive our point more firmly home and in the hope that we should get the assurances we desire.

While we are not prepared to say that what is suggested through the usual channels is as good as our original intention, we feel that it is meeting our point to some degree. We have sympathy with the Government in their desire to get this idea into the right place, and if they think that the right place is an education Bill rather than this Bill, then we would be prepared to agree. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to give the assurances we desire.

:I beg to second the Amendment.

While I appreciate that a miscellaneous provisions Bill is likely to contain a provision of this kind, I hope it will be passed into effect before this Bill is placed on the Statute Book. This is an extremely important matter. It is not just a fleeting matter, but one which has attracted the attention of social workers for many years. You, Sir, will know, that the juvenile magistrates—

Oh!

Well, we sometimes talk about criminal lawyers without meaning a lawyer who is himself a criminal, but one who deals with criminal matters. I hope that if the late Home Secretary—

The ex-Home Secretary.

Yes, the ex-Home Secretary—will look at the matter again, he will find that the style of description is not so imperfect as it might have appeared at first sight. Be that as it may, the magistrates in the juvenile courts have been especially selected because they understand the necessities of young people who happen to have strayed in one way or another from the ordinary path.

12 noon

It is important that in the case of truancy, the matter should be left in their hands also, because they take especial care to investigate every case and see what the home conditions are of the child concerned as well as the other prevailing circumstances in respect of that child. The fact that magistrates who sit in the petty sessional courts and deal with truancy matters are not always acquainted with the circumstances—I would almost go to the extent of saying that the vast majority of them are not acquainted with dealing with juvenile cases in the ordinary way—is itself something which ought not to prevail. They cannot, and in most cases do not, know the best way of dealing with the child who has transgressed by remaining away from school.

I believe that both the Home Office and the Ministry of Education appreciate that fact and will be prepared to deal with it in a proper manner. My only fear is that the matter may be so delayed as far as a miscellaneous provisions Bill is concerned that it may not reach the Statute Book for a very considerable time. If so, I hope that the Home Office and the Ministry of Education will agree that that Bill should be brought into force as speedily as possible and will see their way at a later stage to introduce this provision.

I think it would be convenient if I speak now. There was a long debate upstairs in Committee on this question. A great deal of interest was taken in it and, as has been said, the Division which resulted was a tie, at 12-all. I think it is fair to say that that was not in any sense a party vote. In fact, Members of both parties were on both sides.

Since the Committee stage there has been further discussion on this matter, and I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has had some personal discussion with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who moved the Amendment upstairs. Unfortunately, neither of them is able to be present today—they are, so to speak, paired for the occasion-and my hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his absence. I think, however, that I can say all that is necessary to be said about the Amendment this morning.

The position now reached in the preliminaries for an education Bill is such that I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to say that an Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is now in course of prepara- tion. It is the Minister's intention to include an Amendment to Section 40 of the Education Act, 1944, the effect of which would be to enable a local education authority to bring children directly before a juvenile court on the ground of failure to attend regularly at school.

The Minister expects to present the Bill this session-that, I think, answers the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner)—and the House will have the opportunity of effecting the desired Amendment to the appropriate law and of thus meeting the point which the hon. Member for Widnes and those who supported him in Committee upstairs advocated so clearly. I think that that fully meets all the points that were raised, and I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

I hope that if the Minister of Education does that, she will not do it in quite this form. This is a lot of nonsense. If one troubles to read the Amendment, it means that the fact that mother keeps Jimmy at home, is evidence that Jimmy is beyond control.

No.

Certainly. It is assumed that because the boy is persistently absent from school he is beyond parental control.

The hon. Member is dealing with this matter in a vacuum. The body which deals with this type of offence would not send a lad who has been kept away from school for a few days to a juvenile court. The hon. Member must give them some credit for being able to decide what are suitable cases.

I think that the vacuum is in the hon. Member's head. The Amendment says that if a boy is persistently absent—

Yes, "persistent".

—or is persistently irregular—which is a curious combination of words, anyhow—that

shall — be evidence that he is beyond control."

The fact that a boy does not turn up regularly at school is to be evidence that he is beyond the control of his parents.

It may be entirely due to the action of his parents that a boy does not attend. That is all that those words mean. They are most unsuitable words for the purpose which the hon. Members have in hand. If the Minister of Education does something like this, she does it very much better than the hon. Members opposite have attempted to do it.

I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said. Whatever the merits or demerits of the idea underlying this form of words, the form of words itself is extremely undesirable.

One wonders what type of case the Amendment is assumed to be trying to catch. The mere fact that a child is persistently irregular in attendance at school is itself to be evidence that the child is beyond control. That is extremely hard on the unfortunate child, who may have parents who are beyond control, whose parents may have forced him to go out to work and thereby remain away from school. The mere fact that an attendance officer appears before—

I should like the hon. and learned Member to realise that what he is suggesting, and what the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) suggested, is already provided for by the present statutes. As far as parents are concerned, they can be brought before the court. We are now trying to make provision in the case of children.

I entirely agree that parents can be, and frequently are, rightly, brought before the court, but what the Amendment seeks to do is to say that when a child is brought before the court, the mere evidence of the attendance officer that the child has been persistently irregular in attendance at school shall be evidence in itself that the child is beyond control. That is the wording of the Amendment. It can mean nothing else.

In fairness to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I do not believe that that is what they meant. I believe that their intentions are excellent, but that their wording is entirely wrong. When the Minister of Education looks into the matter, I hope that she will produce a Clause which satisfies the proposers of the Amendment but not in these very words, because I think they are badly drafted.

Supposing that a child is sent out by his parents to deliver newspapers or anything else. That child may be persistently irregular at school, although he is extremely easy to control. The child would be brought before the court, the attendance officer would give evidence of irregularity in school attendance, and the child would, therefore, be assumed, unless contrary evidence is called, to be beyond control, and would be sent to an approved school. Presumably, that is a very undesirable combination. That is the wording of the Amendment. I am not criticising the idea of the Amendment but the wording and I hope that the Minister will reject this form of words.

I assume that when my hon. Friends put the Amendment down they were trying to strengthen the law in regard to persistent truancy from school. While there is a good deal to be said for the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and his neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), I think that we can fairly direct our minds to the purpose rather than the actual wording of this Amendment. I gather that my hon. Friends did not expect to find this would be accepted today.

There was a time when I wondered whether the absence of truancy did not indicate a degeneracy in the spirit of adventure in British youth. In the days when I was a pupil at school truancy was very frequent. Although I had never the pluck myself to be a truant, I did know youths who gaily took a week or a fortnight off persistently. They turned up, or were occasionally brought by their parents, to the door of the school and then, without any hesitation, draped themselves over the headmaster's desk to pay for the pleasure they had had. I recollect one such youth, a schoolfellow of mine, who in that way prepared himself for a very gallant act in the First World War which earned him the Médaille Militaire of the French Government. Certainly, those who obeyed the law and attended school regularly never earned such high distinction.

I am glad to hear that it is probable that there will be early legislation to deal with this matter. I think that one of the things by which the Education Act, 1944, has rather fallen short is in the powers for securing compulsory school attendance. I can speak for the framers of that Act, I hope. We did give considerable attention to this matter and endeavoured to devise a scheme for securing attendance at school which would not carry some of the stigma of offenders which the old law carried.

I am inclined to think that we made the law rather too difficult to enforce and too easy for persons who are determined to evade it—I am now talking about parents rather than pupils. But, undoubtedly it has also made the task of dealing with the persistent truanter rather more difficult than it was. I sincerely hope that this legislation will be brought before us. In fact, I can assure the Under-Secretary of State that if this is put in front of the Transport Bill and the Steel Bill it will have the very lively support of hon. Members on this side of the House because this, at any rate, will be a Bill which will do a little good instead of doing a great deal of harm.

I think my hon. Friends can be reasonably satisfied with the assurance that they have received. I would have been a little more satisfied with it if I could have had the assurance of the Leader of the House that he agrees that this is to be legislation during this Session, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to convey to those concerned that there has been interest in this matter this morning and that a desire for early legislation on this point has been very clearly expressed. I hope that we may see this legislation during the current Session and that it will be framed so as to enable the persistent truant to feel that the law has at last caught up with him and that recent evidences of juvenile ingenuity in just keeping clear of the law are not to be allowed very much longer.

We find the statement of the Under-Secretary most reassuring, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, after "then," to insert:

"unless the court is able to make its own arrangements for classification at a remand home where adequate facilities for observation are available."

I think this Amendment is self-explanatory. It deals with a point which was discussed to some extent upstairs in Committee. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) decided to accept what he called half a loaf, and I have no quarrel with that. The Government agreed to give a certain amount of elasticity to the Clause as originally drafted. What I am suggesting this morning is that they should give a little more elasticity, for reasons I hope to explain.

In the first place, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of overlapping. The new wording accepted by the Government in Committee will not eliminate that overlapping. It will mean that it still remains possible for children to be sent first to a remand home, then there will be inquiries and then the children will come before the court again and be committed to an approved school. Then they will go to a classifying school. I see no reason for that if it is possible to carry out the observation at the remand home.

This matter has been discussed by the most representative body of magistrates in the country, the Council of the Magistrates Association, and they are strongly in favour of the Amendment I am proposing. It is contended that the work is already being satisfactorily carried out at certain remand homes. I emphasise the word "certain ". It is not suggested for a moment that all remand homes have the necessary facilities for carrying out this special observation and classification work, but it is contended, very strongly, that where those facilities exist it would be wasteful, and worse than wasteful, to send children to a classifying school.

There are not many of these classifying schools—not sufficient of them—and those that do exist are overcrowded. There are some evil results from that overcrowding. There are some evil results, as we see reported in the Press recently, of some undesirable boys and girls, particularly girls, being sent to these classifying schools where they mix with other children there for other reasons not so blameworthy and, therefore, influence them in a very undesirable way.

Furthermore, the kind of skilled observation that is required at these classifying schools is only required in a minority of cases. In most cases the justices who have dealt with the case have a fairly good idea, having had the advice of their probation officers and others, as to what is the best kind of approved school to which to commit the boy or girl concerned. It is in the minority of more difficult cases that the classifying school is required, and only in that minority. We suggest that it is quite wrong to send all the children to a classifying school.

There is just one other reason which I wish to mention. It is that when a boy or girl is being sent to spend what is usually a fairly considerable time at an approved school, it is desirable that he or she should settle down in the new surroundings as early as possible. To be sent first to a remand home for a short time, then to another institution and then eventually to finish up in an approved school is unsettling and is not calculated to put that boy or girl on the new right road of training required. It is postponing the time when they can settle into their new surroundings, with their new advisers and be directed into what should be a better path.

These are the only reasons which I need advance now, in view of the fact that the general principle was previously discussed fairly fully.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that it will be accepted because, after all, it does not go by any means as far as an Amendment should go in order to meet the present position. It is not yet recognised that the task which is put in the hands of the magistrates of the juvenile courts is one which they have hitherto carried out, in the main, with complete satisfaction to the community.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat the fact that juvenile courts stand in a very special position. The people who preside over them are specialists who have been chosen in the first instance because of their social work or specialised knowledge of juveniles. The Home Office carries out in the first place the vetting of people whom they appoint to these positions, but the matter does not end there. At a later stage the Home Office appoints, or has within its jurisdiction, the appointment of the chairmen of these courts.

That applies only to London, not to the Provinces.

Let us deal with London first because this point deals to a considerable extent with London. I will speak about the Provinces in a few moments. I know the methods of appointment there.

In London, in consequence of the procedure I have mentioned, we have a body of people who understand their work and who are in a position to decide what is best to be done with these juvenile cases that come before them. They have, at their disposal, in addition, the advice of specialists as officers—probation officers, etc.—of the court. They examine the cases from time to time and follow up every individual case with considerable diligence, and certainly with considerable understanding. I agree that here and there one may find an exceptional case.

When we turn to the question of using the classifying schools, I cannot understand why the Home Office wants to interfere with the jurisdiction of those magistrates in that respect. My view, which I believe is that of a large number of people, is that not only are the London magistrates of juvenile courts in a position to deal with these matters, but that those who deal with juvenile cases in the Provinces, even though the same form of appointment may not apply there, are similarly placed, and have an understanding which is of special relevance in this matter.

The Clause means that the Home Office shall direct that a child shall be sent to a particular classifying school. It means that the Home Office itself wishes to exercise the jurisdiction or the discretion which otherwise is a matter for the magistrates. Why should not the magistrates, having examined the home conditions and all the other circumstances relating to the case, at least be given the benefit of the doubt about their being in just as good a position to decide to which kind of approved school the child shall be sent?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has said, there are not at present many classifying schools. The magistrates know perfectly well what schools there are. They understand what benefit can be derived from the child being sent to one of those schools or otherwise. Why not leave the decision in the hands of the magistrates?

Our Amendment does not go as far as that. I should have liked to have gone to the extent of having the Clause removed altogether. This is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope that we might have a word from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) on it. He has done an extremely valuable service to the community in introducing this Bill, and I am sure he would like it to be as comprehensive and to meet as many cases as possible.

I hope that in those circumstances the Home Office will show its confidence in the magistrates who have been selected to do this work, and in the officers who help them in arriving at decisions; and that they will not, more than they can possibly help, tie the hands of those who are not concerned with any advantage to themselves but whose concern is for the benefit of the children who come before them, for their future and for the interests of the community.

In view of the great co-operation, help and zeal which has been accorded to the consideration of this Bill by the hon. Members for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), it is with regret that I find myself having to oppose this Amendment. I shall endeavour briefly to give my reasons. The hon. Member for Accrington referred to the fact that there was a small number of these classifying schools. There are three for boys and two for girls situated in strategic parts of the country but not altogether covering the country.

This classifying school procedure has been in existence for eight or nine years, so I took it a little hard when I heard the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West say that he would have liked to see the Clause taken out of the Bill. To do so would be to upset something which is now taking place. This is not entirely new. It is clearly—

The hon. Member quite misunderstands my position. No one is suggesting that classifying schools should be dispensed with. We are asking that the magistrates, who know the whole circumstances, shall themselves, without interference by the Home Office, without the compulsion of the Home Office, send a child to a classifying school if that is desirable.

I understand the point of the hon. Member, but I want to make it clear to the House that these classifying schools have been in existence for a long time.

The suggestion that these remand homes might be turned, as it were, into classifying schools would mean that their uses will be extended. There are 70 of these remand homes. The effect of the Amendment would be that each one would be carrying out, with a differing point of view and with complete lack of integration, its own classification in its area. The special catchment area covered by the home would necessarily be small, and if this Amendment were accepted it would mean the whole underlying principle, the whole spirit and virtue underlying classified schools, would be spoilt by being taken into these 70 constituent parts.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West made a great point of the variety of expert advice available to magistrates in the courts—the probation officers and other people who could advise about schools. I would point out that if this Amendment were accepted it would mean that those courts, which after all are judicial bodies and not administrative bodies, would be forced to carry out negotiation arrangements with some 70 different bodies in the country. I think the hon. Member would admit that would be taking away the function of the court in a judicial and juvenile capacity and turning it into an administrative body, which would be undesirable.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that at the bottom of page 3 of the Bill it states that in the case of those magistrates who have a special reason for not making use of one of these schools,

"the court may specify some other approved school … if—(a) the special reason for so doing is stated in the order; and (b) the managers of the approved school … are willing and able to receive …"

the child. That was inserted in the proceedings in the Standing Committee, and in those cases where it is the view of the hon. Members supporting the Amendment that the magistrates should have power to exercise discretion, that discretion and its implementation is adequately covered by what has been inserted in the Bill.

I must resist this Amendment, because I feel that to break up the system which has existed for the last eight or nine years and which may continue to develop as other schools are found necessary will spoil the whole idea of classifying schools. If it were found that the view expressed in this Amendment about the use of some special remand home for classifying purposes was desirable, it would be possible, and in order, for that remand home to be used for this purpose. All that would happen would be that the classifying school principle would not be exercised in that area. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel that that meets their point in some way, but on the general principle of classifying schools I do not believe that 70 remand homes should be turned into classifying schools.

It may be that in part the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has met the case I am proposing to put. It does happen that the Chairman of the Remand Home Association is a constituent of mine and that within my constituency I have the remand home at Leeds.

I have had long conversations on this matter. It is one which I approached completely de novo, because though I have had considerable experience as a magistrate and a member of a local authority, I cannot say that I have ever served in a children's court. I do not agree, as was stated earlier by one hon. Member, that the people who are chosen as magistrates for children's courts are always suitable to try children, but that is entirely another matter. One lady well known to me, who has passed the allotted span of threescore years and ten, who presides over a magistrates bench and seems to drink in fresh draughts of life from the sheer misery she can see in others, seems to think she should still sit on the juvenile court Bench—[Interruplion.] I know that does not happen now, but this lady was so impervious to the law that she thought she was above it. I hope it will be appreciated that there is not necessarily the confidence in these magistrates which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and distinguished members of the Council of the Magistrates Association seems to imagine.

Generally speaking, the Remand Home Association say:

"Total classification leads to much unnecessary duplication in the majority of cases which pass through our hands. The child is uprooted twice with the same object in view. The cost of classification as used today, is much higher than the cost of maintaining remand homes. The results of classification have not justified the extra priority given to classifying schools. Classification is being carried out in the L.C.C. Remand Home at Stamford House. If it is being attempted in one remand home, then we feel that other remand homes could be given the same facilities with very little extra cost."

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South seemed to imagine—I hope I have not understood him wrongly—that this question of classification was an almost exact science, though he did refer to passing things over to 70 remand homes.

The point I was endeavouring to make was that if it was intended to use these remand homes as classifying schools negotiations with the homes would be necessary to make certain that vacancies were available.

I do not consider that a great administrative difficulty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite constantly harp about individuals. They are the party who never see mankind in the mass. Every one is a sacred individual personality who has to be caned for. We should not imagine that psychology is an exact science today. We are not dealing with something of a medical nature—which reminds me of the story of two psychiatrists who met, and one said to the other "You look all right, how am I?" I suggest in the case of a city as big as Leeds, which has a remand home which, in the opinion of people within the city, would be suitable for this purpose, it would be unnecessary duplication to insist that children should be sent to a classifying school. I take it, according to the spirit in which he mentioned it, that the hon. Gentleman suggests that in Leeds it would be possible to go on using the remand home as a classifying centre?

The point I was making was that where there was a special case of a remand home, such as I imagine is referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which was appropriate for the purpose, the matter could be met by making no classifying school available in that area. But it does not necessarily mean that every large remand home in the country would be suitable to the same degree.

I must let the matter rest by saying that I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made out his case, though I pay credit to his intention to meet the commonsense of the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) was right when he said that we must consider this matter in the light of what is best for the child. I do not think we can learn very much by talking about the powers and abilities of magistrates, and all the rest of it. The idea of the classifying school is fairly new. It has come to the fore in the last few years. It was something that we in this House insisted upon. We in Scotland have been pressing for such a type of school for a number of years. We have had the promise, but we have not yet got one.

As a Member of the Select Committee on Estimates which considered the question of approved schools about three or four years ago, I can say that we were much in favour of the extension of the system of classifying schools. It is not right to say that as a result children are uprooted. The fact that a child has to go to a remand home shows that he or she has had no roots.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up one matter with another. Nobody has yet suggested that the classifying school should not be used and extended. The only matter at issue at present is whether the Home Office shall have the right to say, "You must send a person to such and such a classifying school," or the magistrates should have the right to say that they will send a child to one or another classifying school or to some other institution.

Which place and which person is best qualified to do the right thing for the child? Is it the classifying school?

No.

What the hon. Gentleman has said will not mean anything if he does not accept this argument. He suggests that all the power should rest with the juvenile magistrates who should decide whether or not to by-pass the classifying school. Previously, the House has insisted that no one should play around with the future of any child.

Already there are one or two classifying schools in England. It would be a retrograde step to accept an Amendment to permit the by-passing of the classifying school and to allow children to be sent willy-nilly to any approved school which the juvenile magistrates suggest.

It does not say that.

I can read just as well as the hon. Gentleman. That is my interpretation of the Amendment.

Then we will amend it.

It is rather late for that. What will happen before the magistrates make up their minds? The child will have to wait longer at the remand home, if this Amendment is accepted, and then probably he will go to the wrong type of approved school. That would be all right if the child was likely to stay there for only about six months, but he or she will be there for years. It is most important that we should select the right type of approved school not merely from the point of view of the offence and the psychological approach, but also from the point of view of education. The specialist work done by these schools is such that they are best fitted to decide what is the best future atmosphere for the child.

I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) intervened in this discussion. He brought a sense of proportion into our debate. One of the matters that distressed me most when I was at the Home Office was the rapid way in which vested interests grew up in every effort to secure reform of our penal system. Let us make no doubt about this. This is an effort on the part of some people, who have not been in existence for very long themselves, to maintain that they are the people and that wisdom perishes if anyone else is consulted about the task to which they have been appointed.

I intend to be outspoken. If there is one consideration likely to damage all efforts to ameliorate the penal system of this country, it would be if it became the rule that people who manage to get in first are to be there all the time. Even a cricketer who goes in first is lucky if he is not also first out. This is an effort to ensure that these children, whom it is most important to deal with properly, shall, at this stage, when they first get into the serious part of the penal system, receive treatment which is really suitable not for them but for him or her.

If we are to cut off the supply to the criminal population of this country, which grows too rapidly in spite of what we try to do, it is essential that these children, who are now beginning to give the indication of having criminal tendencies, shall be dealt with in an institution, and by people best suited for their special needs. That is the justification for the classifying school.

I regret that, owing to the difficulty of getting premises in recent years, it has not been possible to do more to establish classifying schools. Three for boys and two for girls in the whole of the country are totally inadequate in view of the conditions of our time. I hope that more may be established. I should not rule out a large remand home if I could be assured that I had at the head of it the proper person for this task of classification.

I do not want very profound psychologists in charge of these places. I share the view expressed satirically by my hon.

Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) about a good many psychologists. There are psychologists and psychologists. I have not yet had an opportunity to discover to which group the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) belongs. What we need in these places are men and women who can adopt the elder brother attitude, who can gain the confidence of the young person—the boy or girl committed to their care—and who can then, with a knowledge of the various approved schools and the different curricula and staffing of those schools, indicate the one most likely to be helpful to the child.

That cannot be done by the best juvenile magistrate in the country. That can only be done by a person who lives with the boy or girl for three or four weeks at the least, in order that the first acquaintance and strangeness shall have worn off and the boy or girl can behave naturally and can be observed sometimes without knowing that he or she is being observed.

I should very much regret to see anything that would hamper the development of these classifying schools. The number of people suitable for employment in such schools is very limited, and the training for such employment has not reached any very advanced stage in this country, but for the House now to indicate that it distrusted the classifying principle would, I think, be a disaster.

My right hon. Friend really must not believe that anyone is opposing classifying schools. That is not the point. On the contrary, classifying schools have had children sent to them, and this interference, to which we referred, has not been exercised. It is a very different matter. It is a question of who should send them.

At the moment, I am criticising the people whom my hon. Friend calls the juvenile magistrates.

I am not criticising them because of the work they do, because it is of the highest, but I am suggesting that they have limited opportunities, as compared with the staff of the classifying school. They do not get reports from people who have lived with the juveniles who come before them. They get reports from people who see them in very artificial conditions, when the child is already in full knowledge of the fact that its habits of life, its actions and to some extent its thoughts are under close inspection. There is nobody more capable than the child who is just about to drift into criminal ways of producing what he thinks the beholder wants to see.

I recollect that a very small child was being examined by a school attendance officer, who was very fond of using long words. The small child denied what the school attendance officer had averred. The officer was an ex-inspector of the Metropolitan Police, and, drawing himself up to his full height, he said, "Do you mean to say that I am a prevaricator?" The child, looking up at him and, thinking that he knew the answer which the man wanted, said, "Yes."

I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will not persist in this Amendment. The work of dealing with the juveniles in this country is difficult enough in all conscience, and the effort to ensure that, before they are sent to an approved school, we get a chance of making as reasonably certain as we can that it is the proper approved school is something that ought to be welcomed. When we talk about uprooting, there is nothing worse than to get a child into an approved school and then have to uproot it. That is infinitely worse than sending the child to a classifying school and then sending it on to the proper approved school.

I apologise for having spoken at such length, but I hope the House will realise that, after six years at the Home Office and over 30 years as a magistrate, this is a subject on which I feel very keenly. I believe that if this Amendment were carried it would do an incredible amount of damage to the system that we are slowly building up.

I wish to speak against this Amendment, not by way of criticising magistrates in juvenile courts, because I think they carry out their extremely difficult task painstakingly and with considerable skill. This is a question of dealing with juveniles, whether they are what are called juvenile delinquents, children who have made one slip or others who are on a further stage of a criminal career. These magistrates exercise an extremely difficult task, and one which cannot be fully carried out, under the wording of this Amendment, in the very short time that is available to them.

The right way to deal with these juveniles is to send them to classifying schools, where, in the course of a period of time, when the fact that they have to appear in court is known, the school can choose the proper category and can discover the proper approved school which is suitable.

I would stress the point that we must have, in charge of these extremely important places and in charge of these children, people who are fully qualified for the task. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to psychologists, but I think he used the wrong word. Let us avoid the type of person who calls himself or herself a psychiatrist and who thinks that he or she is most important. I am quite certain, and I speak entirely for myself, that they are a menace in dealing with young children.

We have seen them so often in the Army making bad soldiers into criminals, so that every soldier, when convicted by a court-martial, said, "I want to see a psychiatrist." The psychiatrist promptly found facts which had never taken place in the whole of the life of a soldier, and demonstrated that he never ought to have been convicted, but should receive a pat on the back or even a week's leave.

Let us not allow these psychiatrists to interfere with these children, or to allow them to get away from the use of ordinary, commonsense expressions, such as "This child is really all right, if dealt with more forcibly at the start." As soon as a child learns that it has a psychopathic personality, the meaning of which word the child does not even understand, but which is the usual expression used by these people, it feels that it is something much more important, whereas, in actual fact, a pennyworth of commonsense is worth 40s. worth of psychiatry.

I want to oppose this Amendment for one reason only. I have some experience of a large remand home; indeed, I have been chairman of it for some years. The conclusion which I have reached is that, although I think it is useful, and it is one of the best remand homes in the country. the sooner the children get out of it the better for them. There is a constantly shifting population and the child is very often not at all himself, at any rate, for the first few days or weeks after entering that remand home.

The last time when I was in Stamford House, I came across a small boy of 12 whom not only I but officers of the home regarded as a perfect angel, but, when we looked up his history and got the full facts, we found that we were very much mistaken. I do not believe that, in the atmosphere of a remand home, we are likely to get the right classification that we want and which we are much more likely to get in the less hurried atmosphere where those concerned can watch a child more carefully and take a reasonable time with the child before giving an opinion.

A great deal has been said about psychologists and psychiatrists today. I do not know whether or not they can ascertain what is in mind of a child, but, certainly, I cannot do it in the slightest, and I admit that fully. If any of these good people can give me any help, I am grateful for it, whether that help is given in a remand home or in a classifying school. I want the remand home to be used as little as possible and for as short a time as possible. I believe that most of these children, the real doubtful cases about which we are uncertain, are much better ascertained in a classifying centre than in a remand home.

Because my name is on the Order Paper as supporting this Amendment, I want to make my position in this matter perfectly clear. It is due to an inadvertence which it would take far too long to explain that my name appears there. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) came in and filled the gap because at that moment I was not prepared to second the Amendment.

When we discussed this matter in Cornmittee, what is now Clause 6 was Clause 5, and we had a long discussion on the whole question of classifying schools. I expressed myself in Committee at some length on the subject and I was concerned all the time with the general principle of classifying schools and with how far these juvenile court magistrates could go or would be allowed to exercise their discretion. I expressed some concern about that, but to assume that the present Amendment before the House is trying to carry out some of the things that were said in a general sense about classifying schools just will not do.

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), who introduced this Bill, moved in the Standing Committee an Amendment which we accepted, and in my view, although that Amendment did not go the whole way, it certainly provided the right safeguards as far as juvenile court magistrates are concerned. In his speech this morning the hon. Gentleman reminded the House that there are only five classifying schools in the country, but to suggest that 70 remand homes, which are not equipped at all for this particular kind of work, could make up for the lack of classifying schools is not the right suggestion at all.

Those of us who have had any experience of this matter and who know something about remand homes have a very high regard for the people who run them, but to suggest that as at present established remand homes can possibly take the place of classifying centres is, in my view, quite ridiculous. Although my name happens to be on the Order Paper, I want to make m) view perfectly clear on this point.

The answer to this problem is more classifying schools, and I hope that the Home Office, while subject these days to all the problems of capital expenditure, and so on, will apply themselves to the provision of more classifying schools, because, if they are provided, the problem of the juvenile court magistrate will be very greatly alleviated. Because of that, I suggest to my hon. Friend, who is left carrying the juvenile, that he might, perhaps, see his way to assist the House by withdrawing the Amendment.

We have had a useful debate on this Amendment, and I think it has done a lot to ventilate this question. It has, in fact, gone rather wider than the Amendment. Both the mover and the seconder of the Amendment have each been suspected of some hostility towards the classifying school as such, and I think that hon. Members who made that mistake were not altogether unreasonable in doing so. But from an interruption by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) I gather that he is not now prepared to go to that length and wishes this Amendment to be regarded in a narrow sense.

With the great respect, there is nothing at all in the Amendment which justifies anybody in making comments of that nature. The hon. Gentleman must really appreciate that this is not an attack on the classifying school at all; it is merely saying that the magistrates shall have the right to do certain things if they consider there are proper facilities for doing them. But this has been ridiculously expanded into implying an attack on the classifying schools.

I am very happy to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, but things were said in the course of the two speeches which have at any rate led some of us to think that the classifying schools are not altogether approved of.

I think there are some things which it may be as well that I should say on behalf of the Government in connection with the points raised in this debate. I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel that remand homes are not really suitable for doing the work of classifying schools. Indeed, that must be so because they are necessarily too small to have a sufficiently large catchment area properly to do the work of classifying. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in a speech with which I cordially agree, rather suggested at one moment that we needed, perhaps, as many classifying schools as possible.

I am not sure what the possibilities are now, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman who is now saying, I gather, that while we could do with more, we do not want one classifying school per remand home, because that, quite obviously, would reduce the matter to an absurdity. But I suggest that five is not really an adequate number for the country.

I accept that we need more than we have at the present time, but that there is a limit and that we do not want too many classifying schools because if we did then classifying as such would become an absurdity. For that very reason I think it important that we should have a single system of classi- fication. It would be unfortunate if we had alternative systems growing up side by side, and it might be that if an Amendment of this kind were accepted it would lead to rival systems which would be extremely unfortunate.

The Clause as drafted does not rule out the possibility of using suitable, large remand homes, but I do not think the House would wish to encourage the development of such a system. Of course, if they can be used in the meantime, so much the better, but the system we wish to develop and which has largely been developed throughout the country is the system of classifying schools, and for that reason I recommend the House not to accept this Amendment.

On the Amendment itself, I think it right to point out, as has been suggested by certain hon. Members in the course of their speeches, that the wording is not really appropriate. The Amendment suggests that the juvenile courts should themselves make arrangements for classifying. But they are courts which have to come to judicial decisions; they are not administrative bodies, and I think it would be quite wrong to lay upon them, if not the direct responsibility for administrative action, at all events responsibility for seeing that administrative action is taken.

For that reason I think the Amendment is inappropriate, and it may be that that is the best argument against the substance of it. We do not wish to confuse these two functions. I think that the debate has shown that there is a very large body of opinion in the House against the Amendment, and I hope that it will be possible for the Amendment to be withdrawn, so as to indicate that the House is unanimously against it.

I understand that there is some difficulty about withdrawing the Amendment as the mover of it is not in the Chamber.

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

In moving the Third Reading of the Bill, I should like to detain the House for a few minutes to pay certain tributes, and also to deal with one or two points in the Bill which have not been referred to this morning. I would be less than courteous if I did not express my earnest thanks to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Joint Under-Secretaries and the officials of the Home Office for something more than co-operation which I have received in introducing this Bill to the House. May I aso pay tribute to the co-operation and information which I have received from a number of societies and associations who are vitally concerned in the matter of child welfare. I should like to place my thanks on record to all those whom I have mentioned.

I think that it says much for the strength of our Parliamentary institution that, as we have seen this morning, there can be a clear disparity of opinion on certain points, quite apart from matters of party on either side of the House. That has been so during the progress of this Bill, and it has been very clearly demonstrated this morning. I hope that it may be noted not only in this House, but also in the country, that there are occasions when hon. Members of the House of Commons do unite to give of their best in matters of very great interest and for the welfare of all.

Perhaps they are casting their minds back to their own juvenile delinquency.

I was hoping that my tributes might be regarded a little higher than that, although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, about the question of juvenile delinquency. I hope, however, that he will not argue from the particular to the general.

In dealing with various points of the Bill, may I make it clear that various matters which find their expression in the Clauses of the Bill reflect the many aspects which those who have been concerned in child welfare find a rise? Child welfare is not a single-thread subject; it is something which affects many different characteristics of the whole matter, and this Bill is an example of that. There are Clauses dealing with various points on the whole matter of child welfare. Quite briefly, I want to refer to some of them.

Clause 1 of the Bill adds a fourth category of children who may be "in need of care and protection." That is where a child is ill-treated or neglected in a manner likely to cause it unnecessary suffering or injury to health. That has not been referred to in the House this morning, and it may be of interest to call attention to it.

May I particularly draw the attention of the House to Clause 3, which deals with something which, of all the matters in this Bill, has commended itself most strongly to me. That is the question of codifying the existing arrangements for the use of reception centres. I would say that the practice is taking place at the present time, but this Clause will put on the Statute Book the practice of using reception centres, for children of 12 years of age and under, where such reception centres have been declared as available by the local authorities. I think the House will agree that that is a great step forward, not so much from the point of view of discipline as regard the welfare of children, but to make certain that they are not influenced by the wrong things.

Much has been said about the classifying schools, and I will not add to that, except to reiterate that I firmly believe, in the same way as was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that in this all-important matter of child welfare we must introduce a high measure of classification. It is not possible to treat alike all children who may come within the confines of the law at an early age. They need classification with regard to the respective treatment necessary to make them good citizens. I think that the classification school provides for that, and I hope that it will go on developing and will make contributions in that regard.

There is one thing which appears in this Bill which is not in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Clause 1 of the Bill adds a new category of children who may be in need of care and protection. The Act of 1933 lays down certain facts and penalties about child cruelty and neglect generally. I want to make clear to Members of this House, and I hope that the people of the country will also have regard to this, that however much legislation we have on the matter of child cruelty and neglect, it is of little use unless we have the complete co-operation of members of the public. That is necessary at all times.

The public, by and large, do not take proper action to bring these things to the notice of the authorities concerned. I do not believe, as was suggested in one Amendment which was not moved, that it is so much a matter of the public not knowing where to go to place information. I think that the public must realise that in dealing with cases of criminal neglect they have a large measure of responsibility for bringing these cases to the notice of those best able to deal with them. I hope that message, together with the proposals contained in this Bill, will do something to ameliorate the position of child cruelty and neglect in this country.

I beg to second the Motion.

I think that some of us on this side of the House would be remiss if we did not on this Third Reading offer our congratulations to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) for having brought the Bill to this stage. He had no opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading and, therefore, the points which he has just been making are very necessary, if only for the purposes of record.

We congratulate him on introducing a Bill which, in spite of some of our criticism of the detail, is in fact a very fine little Bill. If this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it will have made a great step forward in dealing with this great problem. Those of us who have been associated with the organised magistrates of this country for some time offer a very sincere welcome to the general principles of the Bill and thank the hon. Gentleman for having introduced it.

We also join with him in thanking the Minister and officials of the Home Office for their help and consideration during the passage of the Bill. I hope that what we have done in Committee and on Report stage has been helpful, and that this Bill will quickly become the law.

I wish to add my humble congratulations to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). Everyone concerned with the question of juvenile delinquency and the treatment of juveniles will agree with most of what he said, and particularly with his last few words. There is no question at all that in the main children ought properly to be dealt with at home, but unfortunately many parents do not realise their obligations, and consequently it is essential that a Bill of this nature should be introduced to deal with problems which have not been satisfactorily provided for in existing legislation.

There is one question I ought to refer to, because I put up a somewhat single-handed fight over one Clause. I should like to clear up any misunderstanding which may exist. I should be the last person to suggest that it is not in the highest degree essential that the interests of the child should be considered and that proper treatment should be alloted according to the needs of the child and to the necessity for making him a useful and important member of society, a useful citizen.

I have lived too long not to have appreciated the importance of that, but, on the other hand, it is no good appointing people to do a job if you have not got full confidence in them. I said earlier in the debate that the task given to magistrates who preside at juvenile courts is a highly specialised one. If the right people are not appointed, methods should be devised whereby the Home Office can ensure that the right people are obtained.

I believe the method adopted in London is a good one. It may be that in some provincial centres the magistrates are not chosen with the same meticulous care as they are in London, and perhaps some improvement is required. But once we have appointed these magistrates it should be left to them. In the main they are doing the work voluntarily. I agree that stipendiaries sometimes sit as the chairmen of juvenile courts, but the work is largely voluntary.

The juvenile magistrates devote their full attention to their duties. Their work does not just stop when a case has been heard, as does that of the other magistrates. They pursue the matter further. They follow up the case history of the individual. It is not just a matter of waving aside information or of not being able to penetrate into the real history of the child. On the contrary, the fullest investigation is made into the antecedents of the child before the magistrates arrive at a decision.

This work is done by experts, not only official experts but also by experts in the sense that on the juvenile bench are usually found people with a vast experience in youth club movement, in educational circles and in rearing children themselves. It would be an unfair reflection on those who have been appointed because of their special qualifications to suggest that they are not capable of deciding on a very large number of questions which are perhaps later on dealt with administratively.

What is the real point of Clause 6? I do not want to be regarded as a person who wishes to fight to the last ditch for the sake of doing that. There is no question of that. I hope the House will know by this time that I do not adopt that type of attitude. I am not prepared to damage the chances of the Bill be-coming an Act. It will be readily under-stood that some of us have certain experience of our own which possibly can be of benefit to those who have had a much longer but perhaps rather different experience. I am not considering the vested interests of magistrates. I do not think it is fair to talk about the vested interests of magistrates.

I did not allude to the vested interests of magistrates. I referred to the vested interests of certain professional people who are engaged in this way.

I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have had no intimation and would never had accepted from a professional source of that sort any directive with regard to my point of view.

My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that one of our hon. Friends mentioned that he had been approached by the chairman of a professional organisation with very decided views on the matter.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I am sure he will appreciate that I am speaking from my own personal experience. I have had a fair amount of experience of the youth club movement and so on, and I know many people on the magisterial bench. I am fairly intimate with one of them. She happens to be my own wife, and I have discussed these matters with her and others from time to time.

The magistrates who hear the case know all the circumstances and they also know something more than the circumstances. They know the tone in which the replies are given in court and they know the manner in which the child responds at the hearing to the questions which are put. Sometimes that is infinitely more important than the statement which is made. The magistrates see the way in which the child reacts and they are in as good a position as anybody, if they are people who understand the method of inquiring into these cases, to know what is in the child's mind. Their experience teaches them to understand and to assess the reactions of the child in the case itself.

That was why I was anxious that there should not be taken from those experienced people, who have specialised knowledge and information, the possibility of deciding as far as they can the method by which attention shall be given to the child. That does not mean that I am against the use of these classifying schools. On the contrary, the schools are full. That is because the magistrates have sent children there. Up to now, the magistrates have known, or have thought they knew, which classifying school was the right place and have sent the children there.

It is already admitted that they can contract out. Let us not misunderstand that position. My argument is not so weak that it has been rejected entirely, because in certain circumstances magistrates are to be entitled to make an exception in relation to a child when, in their discretion, they think that the Home Office directive should be overlooked-that is what it means. I am not yet convinced that this whole matter of selecting the classifying school or otherwise should not be left in the hands of the magistrates. That is the difference between us. and the only difference.

I do not believe that the Home Office is in a better position to make a decision about a child, whom it does not hear. The Home Office has the evidence and can have full depositions but the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows from his own experience that it is possible to read a deposition many times and still not find the intent of the person who gave the evidence. The magistrates, on the other hand, have an advantage; they see and hear the child. The Home Office has before it simply a document. It can make inquiries, of course, but it has not the opportunity of observing the nuances which can be observed while the case is proceeding.

Is not the answer in the hon. Gentleman's own argument? Surely the whole point is that a classifying school is allocated to a particular court and the school has that expert knowledge which the hon. Gentleman wants to see.

The whole point is this: if the magistrates decide that way they will send the child to that classifying school. The magistrates can judge equally as well as the Home Office, and they have the additional advantage of having heard the case in the court.

The hon. Gentleman has several times referred to the Home Office. I am not certain what it is that he suggests that the Home Office can do in this matter.

I will read the Clause:

"Where any court has been notified by the Secretary of State.…"

I assume that that means the Home Office.

The hon. Member was speaking of the Home Office or the Secretary of State interfering with the magistrates' discretion.

I meant the Department.

I presume he recognises that the interference is limited to designating the classifying school and that he is making no further suggestion.

Of course not. Far be it from me to cast any such aspersion upon any Secretary of State for the Home Department. I would never do such a thing. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I am casting no aspersions on the ability of the Secretary of State in a moral sense. I am merely making this specific point. I may be wrong. No doubt the Home Office thinks that it is right, whereas I think that I am right; and I think that the magistrates, who, after all, have been properly appointed, are in the best position to deal with this matter.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has had a vast experience of these affairs, both in his capacity as a magistrate and in his capacity as Home Secretary in previous Governments. May I say that, quite apart from party feelings, I have the highest regard for him? On this occasion, however, I am sure that he will accept that it is possible for us to agree to disagree on a matter which affects children very closely indeed.

Those are my reservations, and it is possible that at a later stage someone may consider them quite reasonable and may see fit to meet them by removing the Clause. Things like that have happened before, and it may be that in another place someone will feel as I feel about this matter. I hope that the Bill will become an Act. We are all grateful for the opportunity which has been given for the Bill to be placed on the Statute Book and for the manner in which it has been conducted by the promoter in the course of its proceedings.

The penultimate remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) relieved me of the necessity of saying very much about the point which he has twice raised. I was a little surprised, however, to find an hon. Member on this side of the House appealing to another place to do what he has failed to do here. I cannot help feeling that he is not likely to find much sympathy in another place, although he can rest assured that henceforth all his utterances will be suspect, now that we know where his ultimate faith lies.

This is the difference between us. He said that it was right that the interests of the child should be considered. But the law on this matter is that the interests of the child must come first, over the interests of everybody else, magistrates, professional people engaged, and even parents. The interests of the child have to come first and not merely to be considered.

I do not share my hon. Friend's hope that, as a result of the Bill, the way in which juvenile court magistrates are appointed in London will become a rule for the country. In my view, it is deplorable that in London these magistrates should be selected, and their chairman chosen, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I wish that in London we had the same rule as we have elsewhere, and that these magistrates were elected by their colleagues, they themselves electing their own chairman.

I still hold the view which I held when I spoke on one of the Amendments. I do not think that the magistrates in the juvenile court see the real child at all. The child in the witness box, the child who is before them, is in a highly theatrical situation. It is necessary to live with the child for a time to find out the real child. When I was a teacher I noticed that I learned more of my boys when I was conducting them on rambles than ever I learned about them in the classroom.

We must live in natural surroundings with a child if we want to get to know the springs of its conduct and the ideals which guide and inspire it. I wonder whether my hon. Friend ever read that very remarkable book which was published some years ago, "High Wind in Jamaica." One of the characters was a juvenile witness who secured the most unjustifiable hanging of a man, a girl who gave the answers that she thought were really wanted.

This witness dramatised her situation to such an extent that the court believed her rather than the clear evidence that existed to the contrary, on the quite unreal theory that a child of that age could not tell lies in court. I doubt very much whether the girl thought she was telling lies. My experience of girls in schools is that they often manage to "kid" themselves that a lot of things that never happened have, in fact, happened.

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) on the use he has made of his good fortune in the Ballot. This Measure brings up to date a very important part of the law of this country. It will enable those who have charge and oversight of children and young persons to discharge their duties with fresh opportunities of doing the right and sensible thing.

To have been responsible for bringing such a Measure before the House, and having the pleasure of seeing it moulded in Committee and at no distant date passed on to the Statute Book without too much alteration in another place, in spite of the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, must be very gratifying to a Member of Parliament who has not had many years' experience here. We congratulate him on his success and we trust that it will be an encouragement to him to spend further time in lighting up some of the dark places of the law of the country.

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow his remarks on the subject of the appointment of justices of the peace in London; but apart from that I agree with the sentiments he has expressed, and with those he expressed earlier upon specific Amendments.

There has been a remarkable degree of unanimity. I had hoped it would be complete. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) began his speech by picking up a white sheet. He toyed with it, and I hoped that he was going to don it. Unfortunately, he laid it aside, and was left in a state which it is not unfair in this regard to describe as "naked."

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) on his good fortune in getting his place in the Ballot, using it to introduce such a Bill as this, and, in doing so, exercising such skill in piloting it through the House. It is not a very easy Bill. These matters are not controversial, but they have many delicate points which might easily become so. My hon. Friend has handled them throughout with the greatest skill and care.

I would finish by reiterating what my hon. Friend said in moving the Third Reading. Our legislation in this House is necessary to achieve our purpose, which we shall not achieve unless the public realise that they have a large measure of responsibility. I hope that our debate will be widely brought to the attention of the public, who will realise that in doing their part in making the Bill effective when it becomes law they will be adding to the happiness and contentment of the children of this country.

In a very few words I want to add my thanks to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) for having introduced this Bill. All who are concerned in child care will be grateful to him. In that matter, like other matters such as science or art, changes take place and, valuable as the Bill certainly is, it is only a step, only one in a series of Bills which will have to be produced as our minds are brought up to date and fresh experience is obtained.

I regard Clause 2 as the most important Clause. It states:

"if a local authority receives information suggesting that any child or young person may be in need of care or protection it shall be the duty of the authority to cause inquiries to be made into the case unless they are satisfied that such inquiries are unnecessary."

I look upon that as exceedingly valuable and I hope it will induce local authorities to go forward and make it easy for the necessary information to reach them.

When things go wrong, when a child's training is deficient, or it is treated improperly, carelessly or cruelly, the facts should be known early. The Under-Secretary suggested that in cases of cruelty people who wish to give information should go to the nearest policeman, but some people are not inclined to do so because they associate the policeman with conviction and imprisonment. They have a rooted objection to policemen.

I therefore hope that local authorities will make it easy for anybody suspecting that anything is wrong to report the trouble to the local authority. We are all grateful to the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. Perhaps he will give his attention further to the needs of children, and will introduce another instalment of the valuable work that he is doing.

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

Rather to my surprise I find myself moving the Second Reading of this Bill. When, on the day I was fortunate enough to win a place in the Ballot, and the Bill did not arise, four Parliamentary authorities said I had "had it"—and if my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is momentarily absent, will forgive me for referring to another place—I decided that, if necessary, we must adopt the device of having the Bill introduced on the other side of the Central Lobby.

My only regret that the Bill is being discussed this afternoon is that the attendance in the House is rather inadequate for such an important occasion. The subject title of the Bill is:

"To establish throughout the United Kingdom and the non-self-governing Colonies and Protectorates a standard of Human Rights and Freedoms applicable to all Her Majesty's subjects without distinction of race, colour, sex, language, religion, birth or other status."

In drafting the Bill we have sought to give full expression to that principle. If we have failed in any way to do it, we shall be grateful for suggestions for amending the Bill when, as I hope, it reaches the Committee stage. The Bill reverts to an older and a good custom in the House by having a Preamble. In that Preamble reference is made to the Atlantic Charter, to the Charter of the United Nations and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. One might have made reference to yet another document, the Convention of Human Rights which has been adopted by the Council of Europe.

It is, however, particularly upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that this Bill is based. That declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10th December, 1948, by 48 votes in favour, with none against and with eight abstentions. The nations which abstained are rather significant in character. They consist of the six nations associated with the Soviet bloc, the Government of Saudi Arabia, which was then very much of a dictatorship, and, not to our surprise, the Government of the Union of South Africa. All the other Governments in the United Nations voted in favour of this Universal Declaration.

It would not be too much to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations is one of the great six human documents for liberty since the beginning of time. I would place in the same category only the Magna Carta of 1215, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the American Declaration of In- dependence of 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens of 1789. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an historic milestone on the long journey to fundamental freedom. This is its opening sentence:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

That is one of the greatest sentences penned in human history.

We are bringing forward this Bill because we believe it is now a matter of honesty that the Governments which accepted the Declaration of Human Rights should apply it in the territories for which they are responsible. This Bill applies not only to this country but to the Colonies and to the Protectorates. Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights particularly emphasises that the Declaration should be applied to the non-self-governing territories. It reads as follows:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

We sometimes forget in this House that while we are responsible for a population of 50 million within the United Kingdom, we are responsible for over 60 million in the non-self-governing territories of the British Empire. Therefore, I make no apology for including them within the scope of the Bill.

May I anticipate an objection which may be made from the benches opposite, that it is wrong for this Parliament to intervene by seeking to apply these principles to Colonies where legislative authorities are developing? I would concede at once that in any Colony where there is true self-government it would be wrong for this House to lay down a principle of its administration. But in the Colonies which come under this Bill it would be far from the truth to say that there is self-government.

The nearest approach is the Gold Coast which, we hope, will attain to full Dominion status within a year or two. But is Kenya one of these Colonies? It has a Legislative Council, it has an African population of 5 million, but that population is not allowed to elect a single representative to that Legislative Council. With Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, one African territory after another in which the Africans have not the right themselves to elect representatives, it cannot be argued that in such conditions we are interfering with the democratic rights of another country when the majority in those countries have no democratic rights at all.

I recognise that in the United Kingdom the equalities urged in this Bill are broadly accepted. We are fortunate and happy that the sense of the colour bar is not strong here, but there are still cases where it operates. One of the largest housing organisations in London, a private company, which probably lets more flats than any other housing company, has a clause in its contracts not only by which no coloured person may rent a flat, but by which Europeans who rent the flats are not even allowed to have coloured visitors upon those premises.

In addition to that outrageous discrimination, one knows from experience that our friends from African and Asian countries find that the colour bar operates often when they are seeking accommodation, though I am glad to say that we have now reached a stage in this country where people are ashamed to confess that prejudice and it is not often given as the reason.

There is one other sphere in this country where we should do more to remove this discrimination. That is, in connection with university education. I am finding from my own experience that students who come from Africa, unless they have the endorsement of the Colonial Office, find it almost impossible particularly to get into medical schools. The Bill would lay it down that there should be equal opportunity for all students, irrespective of their colour. On the whole, however, one can speak with pride of Great Britain in its treatment of Asian and African peoples who come here. I wish that one could speak in the same way of the Continent of Africa as a whole.

I do not believe that it is possible to exaggerate the importance of the human issue which is now being decided in the Continent of Africa. I regard it as the most fundamental of all. I regard it as more fundamental than the patterns of social systems and more important than the structure of a political constitution, because it is the basic fundamental thing of all life.

Are human beings free and equal, as the Declaration of Human Rights lays down, or are there races in the world which have the right to regard themselves as superior? That issue is the big issue which is now being decided in the Continent of Africa. On the one hand, there is a Government, to which I will not refer, which in its legislation and in its administration is applying to the African people the Nazi philosophy of the Herrenvolk that the white race is a superior race and that the African race is little above the level of animals.

Would the Bill affect that Government?

No, and that is exactly why I am making only a passing reference to it.

On the one side, there is that Government. On the other side, there is the great hope which is now offered in West Africa, the great hope which is offered in the Gold Coast, where the Africans themselves are moving towards self-government and where they are showing a constructive ability in it which is a matter for pride for all those who are associated at all with them.

I hope that the hon. Member will be good enough to acknowledge that the state of affairs in the Gold Coast is very largely due to the efficient and wise British administration of the past.

Yes, I am quite ready to acknowledge that.

There are some Members on the opposite benches who are so sensitive in these matters that they think that any championship of the African people is necessarily a denunciation of the Europeans in those countries or of the Civil Service which has been administering those countries. I assure the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) that is not in my mind, although he has suggested it in an earlier speech.

I believe everyone would recognise in the Gold Coast the advance which there has been and the technical assistance which is now being given—in that, the British administrators have played a very considerable part indeed—but the principle which I want to lay down is this. We must decide whether we wish to advance along the lines on which the Gold Coast is advancing, or whether we want to apply the colour bar and racial discrimination. When one comes to the latter point, there is between the Government of the Union of South Africa, on the one hand, and the Gold Coast, on the other hand, a great area in Central Africa and in East Africa where the decision between these principles has not yet been accepted.

When I was in Kenya 18 months ago, I was in the company in Nairobi of Dr. Kalabala, the Research Officer of the United Nations in East Africa, and also with a very high official of the office of the Indian High Commisioner—two distinguished men, two men who had gone to universities and colleges and had obtained the highest degrees, men with a culture equal to that of any Member in this House.

I spent one hour in the city of Nairobi trying to find a restaurant where I could sit down at a meal with them. After an hour, I had to go to a low dance hall establishment in the down-town of Nairobi before there was even any place where I could sit with my friends, because they happened to be African and Indian, to take a meal with them. There is no Member of the House who can justify that, and I say that when we have that kind of practice in our Colonies, in Colonies in which the Africans have no representation by election, it is time that the House indicated the view that the colour bar ought not to operate in that way.

Were any of the hotels at which the hon. Member applied for admission, Indian or European owned?

Certainly—both. In fact, one of the restaurants into which I went was owned by an Indian, and I walked out when he would not serve my African and Indian friends. He came to me and said, "I can do no other. The regulations of the licence under which I operate do not allow me"—

rose—

—"to serve in this restaurant to any African or to any Indian, an intoxicating liquor."

That is different.

The hon. Member says that that is different.

Yes, it is.

I ask Members on the benches opposite, if a European can have intoxicating liquor, why cannot an African or an Asian have it?

Surely the hon. Member is well aware that the whole object of introducing that legislation was to safeguard the Africans—I am not clear about the Indians, but certainly the Africans—from being sold intoxicating liquor and exploited. Surely, therefore, that sort of legislation is one which the hon. Member, who has the interests of the Africans at heart, would uphold in any sense of balance.

I am objecting to racial discrimination in this matter. It is sheer paternalism for European people to say that we are to have the right to eat and drink what we like, but that the African and the Asian people shall not have that right.

I was giving that instance because in that case there was an Indian owner; I was yielding that point. But the hon. Member will be the last to assert that this applies only to those who are Indian owners of hotels or restaurants. We spent an hour going from hotel to hotel, and from restaurant to restaurant—not, in that case, to get intoxicating liquor, but just to get an ordinary meal—and I could not find a place where it could be provided to my friends, because they happened to be African and Indian. That is a thing of which we are all ashamed. At least, I hope we are all ashamed and, if someone is not, I hope he will get up and say so.

I am not ashamed.

All right, now we have evidence that even in this House there are hon. Members on the benches opposite who stand for the colour bar—

The hon. Member has no business to say that.

—who stand for the colour bar in the refusal of equal liberties even to break bread between a European, an African and an Asian.

I said nothing of the sort about any colour bar. but I said I approved entirely of the regulations—one may call them paternal if one likes—which prevent coloured people getting those things which they should not get. There are also regulations in this country which prevent Europeans getting things they should not get.

I will only ask the hon. Member to read HANSARD. I was describing how I was refused a meal, even without intoxicating liquors, with an African and an Indian friend of distinction and had to spend an hour in the City of Nairobi in finding a restaurant where that could be done.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and I only ask him to be kind enough to explain to the House on what basis these liquor laws are promulgated. Will he explain why Africans are not allowed to be served with intoxicating liquors?

No, the hon. Member must not give a wrong emphasis to what I am saying. I only introduced the liquor case to illustrate the Indian case to which the hon. Member referred. My main case is that 18 months ago it was the general practice in Nairobi for Africans and Asians to be denied the opportunity to take a meal with or without liquor with a European in its restaurants and hotels.

Let me add this, because I want to assure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that I am not concerned only with Europeans. I came back from Kenya, unlike many other friends, hopeful about the future of that country. I came back from Kenya even hopeful about it on this issue of the colour bar because I found, not only in association with the African and Indian populations, but with a group of Europeans there—Sir Charles Mortimer, Mr. Derek Erskine and others—who are very courageously standing for equality between the races and, indeed, taking the initiative to try to break down what I have just been describing.

While this applies in Kenya, and in a hundred other ways, the segregation and discrimination, whether it be land, or health, or locations, or residence, or education, it applies in nearly every respect—it has even severer forms in the neighbouring or not far distant Northern Rhodesia. There it is not the custom for Africans and Asians even to travel in the same vehicle. It is not the custom for them to use the same post offices as European customers. Even in the shops they are not allowed to enter through the doors, but must buy through hatches in walls. Those are things which I believe all of us desire to see removed and I again emphasise that Central Africa and East Africa, where these issues are still undecided between the philosophy of the Union of South Africa and that of the Gold Coast, will be decisive areas in this matter.

I think it possible that it may be said that it is unnecessary to introduce this Bill because a Commission of the United Nations is now working out a covenant on this matter. I hope that the United Nations will succeed in working out a covenant which will be applicable in all countries. The greatest possible encouragement to that would be for this Parliament to pass this Bill. It would be a lead to other nations throughout the world.

It is worth emphasising that other nations have already taken unilateral action. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia bases its human rights almost entirely upon the wording of the Declaration of the United Nations. The Constitutions of Costa Rica, Syria, El Salvador and Haiti embody these principles of the Declaration. A special committee of the Canadian Senate has prepared a Bill of Rights founded on the Declaration. The Federal Republic of Germany has enacted legislation concerning the legal status of displaced persons in accordance with the principles and spirit of the Declaration.

Perhaps most important of all, in relation to African countries, on 21st November, 1949, the United Nations General Assembly entrusted Italy, as the administering authority over the trusteeship territory of the former Italian Colony of Somaliland on the basis of a declaration of constitutional principles accepting the Declaration of Human Rights.

Therefore, although it will be for the United Nations to adopt a covenant on this matter, when international authorities adopt covenants they do so not for the most advanced nations but for the less advanced nations and Great Britain, with its great tradition and history of human rights, surely has the right to give some leadership to other nations upon this matter. It seems to me that the whole future of the human race will depend upon its attitude to the fundamental problem which I have raised this afternoon; whether the colour of the skin shall decide whether one people is superior to another, or whether one man is superior to the other.

This Bill is put forward in the beliet that what is sacred is human personality, the personality within that skin, whatever may be the colour of that skin and whatever may be the race. All human personalities have the right to grow to the fullest and best and all are equal in their potential development. I hope very much that the House may give a Second Reading to this Bill today so that it may go to Committee, be improved and brought back as a great declaration of our faith by the British House of Commons.

I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). My reason for interrupting was that I felt, leaving out completely the motives that may be behind it, that he does on this occasion and has in the past done a great injustice to the development which has taken place as a result of the association of the British people with Africa during the last 100 years and more.

He said that he could not speak with pride of Britain in Africa. I, on the other hand, find no difficulty in doing so. Indeed, one is reminded of one of the greatest of our achievements merely by going outside the Palace of Westminster and looking at the tablet which has been erected outside St. Margaret's Church in memory of the great effort to emancipate Africa from slavery, the great crusade which was undertaken by those whose names are honoured there, and which we have carried on to the present day.

I would remind the House that the primary reason why we are today in East and Central Africa, and indeed in West Africa, is because of the determination of opinion in Britain in the 19th century to end slavery. It will be remembered that it is recorded that right up to the days towards the end of the slave trade in East Africa about 70,000 to 80,000 Africans a year lost their lives in that evil trade. Although it is perfectly true that this country had a part in the West African slave trade, it was we who ended it there. It was also this country that remained in West Africa in order, as it was put in those days, to bring to Africans Christianity and civilisation.

I regard the developments which have taken place in the Gold Coast, of which mention has been made, with a sense of pride because I regard it, not as some reversal of policy, but as a movement towards the fulfilment of policy. I do not see, in the case of Africa today, this conflict between Dr. Malan and the South African Government on the one hand, and the other extreme of the Gold Coast experiment on the other. I believe that it is perfectly possible, and that indeed it is the only solution for the whole of Africa, to find some real partnership between the races who are the citizens of that continent.

I therefore feel that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, set it in a wrong perspective, in the perspective of continuing conflict and enmity, which is the sort of atmosphere furthest removed from that in which a Bill of this sort should be introduced.

Surely not enmity. Surely my whole plea was for racial equality, which is the basis for the removal of enmity.

My impression of the hon. Member's remarks was that he saw a conflict between the principles as represented by developments in the Gold Coast and the principles as represented by developments in South Africa.

It is worth remembering—I am certain that the Leader of the Liberal Party will remember it—that what is happening in South Africa today is the direct development of the policy and the principle that has been followed in the Gold Coast, which was followed in South Africa at the time of Union in 1909. It was with the object of giving freedom, equality and the rest to South Africa in 1909 that the Union was established and that the political changes that have since developed originated in a good and great Liberal idea.

Therefore, one can say that in some degree—perhaps it is unfair to say it, but it is true—what is happening in South Africa now is in a way the result of the opportunity given to it by carrying a liberal principle to its logical conclusion 40 years ago. I merely use that point to warn all those who are concerned with establishing great principles that the practical result of the establishing of those principles may not always be to their liking.

I have always believed that one of the most important points in putting any law on the Statute Book is that that law shall be capable of practical application in the sense in which it has been considered and passed by this House. I wish to refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough which illustrates the argument that I am trying to put before the House.

The logical conclusion of his principle of equal treatment for all races in Kenya, for example, would be to upset a regulation which was passed to safeguard the African. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) would support his hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, in removing the regulation about selling intoxicating liquor to the Africans.

For white as well as black?

Not entirely. It was the policy, based on experience, of the colonial Government, acting perhaps paternally, but in good faith and in the best interests of Africans as a whole, that a restriction should be placed on the sale of intoxicating liquor. That has been the practice, and it has certainly been recognised by all British Governments of all parties to be in the interests of the Africans that restrictions of that sort should be applied.

The hon. Member has been good enough to call me in aid, but if I were to have to deal with the secondary problem of the supply of drink in Africa, I should deal with it on the basis of equality, and apply to the Europeans the same rules as are applied to the Africans.

I am sure that the hon. Member would do that, and I would not query his sincerity in the matter, but at all events part of the loaf is better than no loaf, and surely the partial application of the principle, which is applied in this case to one section of the community, would in his view be better than permitting the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption by the natives.

I wish to go into one or two of the matters set out in this Bill which should be considered, and which illustrate the point which I am trying to make. Let us examine the question of the trade unions. The Bill says that all persons may be members of a trade union and should have equal rights to form trade unions. It is within the knowledge of the House that the main opposition to African trade unions and to the inclusion of Africans in European trade unions comes not from the employers side in the Colonies concerned or from the Governments; it comes from the European trade union members themselves.

I do not for a moment believe that the passing of a Measure of this sort would set that problem to rights in the correct way. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Lanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) would, through the influence which he can exert through the British trade union movement, be the best channel for putting right something which would appear, from our point of view here, to, be wrong in colonial Africa. The right hon. Member has considerable influence with the mining unions in Northern Rhodesia, for instance. He promised in the debate we had on the Central African Federation that he would use his good offices in that way, and he has done so. That seems to me to be the practical and proper way of tackling this problem.

Surely it is not in the best interests of this House or of the community generally that we should pass an Act which is merely a pious expression of opinion, because that is what it will be considered to be by the general public not only in this country but certainly overseas. I believe that practical action to resolve these problems is what is required.

I would take another example of the sort of practical action which I believe is being taken and should be encouraged. In Clause 9 of the Bill reference is made to:

"All premises licensed for public entertainment and all premises carrying on the business of the reception and accommodation of travellers and visitors—"

and so on should be available to all concerned. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said he spent an hour going round Nairobi to find some place at which he could entertain his distinguished Indian colleagues. I do not say that the version I heard of that particular episode is correct and, I am not doubting his statement at all. But the version I heard was that it is a well-known rule that any European may take into any hotel in Nairobi, Africans or indeed Indians as his guests, and when the hon. Member made application to do so he was told he could arrange a party in one of the hotels. Then, for some reason or other, the engagement was cancelled, but perhaps that may have been on a different occasion.

This is the first time I have heard that. It just never happened at all. It has just been created in the minds of the hon. Gentleman's friends in Kenya as a retort to the absolutely true statement I made that I went to hotel after hotel and restaurant after restaurant and could not get admission with my African and Indian friends. It is an absolute figment of the imagination.

I am perfectly willing to accept the statement which the hon. Member has made. But did he try the United Kenya Club, for instance, which has been set up by East African Europeans in conjunction with Africans and Indians in order to provide precisely those facilities to which he referred? That club was available. It was started under the auspices of one of the gentlemen whose names he gave. It might have been possible to have gone to that club on this occasion, and if so, surely that would have prevented the rather difficult situation for the hon. Gentleman and his friends which undoubtedly arose.

I am full of appreciation for that effort. As a matter of fact those premises were not available at the time when I wanted to give this meal. But apart from that, to say that one club has been formed for this purpose does not mean that there is any justification for hotels as a general rule declining to accept Africans and Indians.

I am not disputing that point. What I am endeavouring to put forward is that there is a movement of opinion in Kenya which has been going on for a good many years and which aims at producing the practical improvement in race relations which I understand this Bill seeks to provide.

My point is that through this spontaneous movement, inspired by good faith, practical solutions will be reached on the spot, where the problems are. They are not in this country or in this House, they are in Africa. It is these movements which are to be relied on to do the job in a most satisfactory way, and everything possible should be done to encourage this movement of opinion to develop in East or Central Africa or wherever it may be.

It should be given the maximum of encouragement and not, as is so often the case, be criticised and attacked, in the sort of speeches to which we listened when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved. After all, in a movement of that sort exists the real solution, as I see it, for better race relations in Africa, rather than by passing a Bill in this House.

Let us take one other item from this Bill. In Clause 10 it is laid down that,

"… no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his right of access to books, magazines and newspapers or of his right of participating in the dissemination of written or printed matter."

This is no doubt a point which could be dealt with at a later stage, but is it really the intention of the promoters of this Bill that the colonial Government, or indeed the Government of this country, should not be allowed to discriminate or to suppress subversive literature? If they are not to be allowed that right, it is quite clear that a free society will not be given the weapons necessary to protect itself against the assault of a dictatorial totalitarian crowd.

Therefore, it seems to me that whatever may be the admirable motives behind this Bill, it is carrying the matter beyond practical application. It is a great weakness in any legislation that when the time comes to put it into force it is found that it cannot be given effect to.

In Clause 17 of the Bill reference is made to the right of entry into the learned professions, and so on. That brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier with regard to the trade unions. There has been a good deal of talk in recent debates in this House about the discrimination which is alleged to exist in Southern and Northern Rhodesia against Africans receiving technical training and the difficulty which they experience in obtaining opportunities for apprenticeship.

The Leader of the Liberal Party was right in principle, or at any rate in theory, when he said that this discrimination existed, particularly in Southern Rhodesia. But practice does not match up with theory in this case. Already great new opportunities have come to the Southern Rhodesian Africans of obtaining skilled employment and training. Sir Godfrey Huggins said not long ago that increasing demands for labour in industry and agriculture and the inevitable scarcity of European manpower has meant that the African has open to him, particularly since the beginning of the last war, increased opportunities for learning skilled trades. Therefore, what is the paper theory about the situation does not correspond in any way to the practice.

I remember in the report on the Central African Federation that there was listed 28 skilled occupations in which Africans were already employed and had opportunity for training and apprenticeship. That is the way in which the principle which this Bill seeks to introduce is in fact being brought into effect by practical developments on the spot. That will take time. It is no good thinking that by passing a Bill of this sort we can eliminate in a day, a week or a month the prejudices, the fears and the lack of confidence that exists on both sides. What can be done is, by the passage of time, to increase good will between the two sides in Africa. Then we shall be able to see resolved many of the problems with which this Bill tries to deal.

I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I feel that there are a good many provisions in this Bill which are premature and impractical. But at this stage we are considering the Second Reading. Ought we not to endorse the principles in this Bill? If we do so, shall we not encourage people who are working for those principles? In the doubtful event of this Bill coming back to the House, I agree that it would have to be expensively amended; but at this stage we are concerned with the principle.

I entirely agree. I do not know of any hon. Member in this House who would dissent from the principle, which is already well established, of the necessity for partnership between the races in Africa. That principle is already established. What we must not do is to give the impression that we do not realise and understand the grave difficulties which exist in Africa and make it appear that we are prepared simply to make a carte blanche declaration of this sort. We should, rather, encourage all developments which are going on here and overseas which aim at improving the partnership and co-operation between the two races.

Fundamentally, this question of race conflict in Africa derives from several considerations. One is a differing set of values—a different stage of social development between one set of races and the other in Africa. The colour problem is not simply the problem of black against white. The colour problem, as the experience in Uganda has shown, is also a problem of the Indian against the African.

There are many facets to this subject. Until we can ensure that more and more of the Africans are not only able to enjoy the privileges of this equality but to accept the obligations, which are equally important, we will not really solve the problem of race conflict fully. The great weakness in our attitude to race in Africa arises from the fact that communities there have not been able to find a way of providing a proper common ground between the European and the Africans or Indians who have accepted all that the European has claimed in the past to provide the basis of their civilisation.

I should like to illustrate that point by what has happened in the past. There is in West Africa a growing middle class. It is a middle class produced as a result of the economic developments created by great trading organisations such as the United Africa Company. The West African middle class was largely the creation of British commerce or, as some people like to call it, of exploitation.

The opportunity which that class had enabled them to provide the leadership upon which West African constitutional and political progress has been based over the last 20 or 30 years. The difficulty has been that we have been slow to absorb the group of Africans which has been educated and which has accepted the standard of approach to life of the European.

Does not the hon. Gentleman forget that West Africa had a contact with Europe for over 300 years, but that East Africa has had only a recent contact with Europe? The East African contact was principally Arab.

I fully realise that, but the European contact with West Africa only touched the coastal fringe. It never penetrated into the northern territories. The Arab contact also seldom penetrated, except for the slave trade, beyond the Swahili Coast.

I hope and believe that some of the examples which I have tried to give of the undoubted progress will help to solve the great problem by which we here are affected but which those in Africa can solve. The men and women on the spot are responsible. They have the opportunity to solve this problem. What we must do is to encourage them. We will not do so by simply nagging at them the whole time or by saying, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, that we are rather ashamed of them. I am not ashamed of them. I am extremely proud of the great achievements not only of the Governments and civil servants in Africa, but of the charter companies and the individual settlers, as well.

No doubt mistakes have been made, but that is inevitable when a new civilisation reaches one which has progressed little beyond the Stone Age. On the whole, the effect of British penetration and association with Africa has been for the total good not only of ourselves but far more especially of the Africans themselves. It is by encouraging the gradual subsidence of the suspicion which has existed that we can best help to solve this problem.

I believe that this Bill has a number of weaknesses. The real interest, which I think I have as much at heart as any hon. Member, of trying to ensure a hopeful future for Africa, can best be served by showing to those who have to solve the problem on the spot the understanding and sympathy which alone will enable them to accomplish the great task which they face.