Lord Meston (CB)

Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation. The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that “no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”. That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say: “A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”. One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means “work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful” to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.