§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Sir F. BANBURYmoved the omission of Clause 1 (provision as to vacation schools and health of school children). He said he had every desire that precautions should be taken to ensure that children should not attend elementary schools in such a condition that they would spread infection among other 34 children. But this clause went far beyond that. Like many other clauses which were incorporated for sentimental reasons, it did a great deal more than was intended. The hearts of the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had, in fact, rather run away with their heads, and if the clause were passed in its present form great inconvenience would result not only to the ratepayers but the children of the country. If the powers of the clause were confined to subsection (b), he would not have so much to say to it, except on the grounds of expediency, because he thought in a, matter of 35 this kind it should be obligatory on the parents to bear the expense, and not the Board of Education, on whom he presumed it would fall, if not upon the rates. The first section apparently gave power to the local education authority to invest the doctor with powers to examine in any place where he thought that certain children required medical attendance and examination. Could hon. Gentlemen give any definition of the words "playing centres during the holidays?" In many towns the playing centre was the middle of the road, and if this clause was carried in its present form it would be open to the local education authority to direct the doctor to wander about the centre of the road and medically examine the children he found there, because it was a "playing centre." If it could be shown that he was wrong he would withdraw his Amendment. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly inform him what "means of recreation" meant? It might as far as he knew mean football or something of that sort. He took it that means of recreation referred to a place, because the clause gave power to provide children attending elementary schools with the means of recreation, but if they left out certain parenthetical and descriptive words, the clause read that the child should attend the "means of recreation." He was not at all sure that the clause was in order, because during the time he had been in the House, now some fifteen years, he had always understood that if a proposal did not make sense it was out of order; and he thought he had proved that this clause was not sense. The Board of Education had authority in all these matters, and he would like to know how the department was to direct a local authority to provide for "children attending a public elementary school…. or means of recreation?" He passed from that to the next lines in the section. The State not only took care of the children, it not only educated them and clothed them, but it was now to provide something in the nature of a public sanatorium. Was that the intention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill? If that was his intention then the opposition to the Bill would be much greater than he supposed. If that was not his intention, the clause ought not to have been introduced in this particular form. The Bill was not discussed on the 36 Second Reading at all. His recollection was that it came on at the end of business, and hon. Members opposite appealed to him to let it pass and he did so; he was wrong; he ought to have taken the trouble to read and study it before acquiescing in the Second Reading. The fact was that when these Bills went upstairs, and the House knew nothing whatever about them, they were liable to misconstruction. He had endeavoured very shortly to put before the House the reasons which actuated him in moving the omission of the clause.
§ *Mr. BYLES (Salford, N.)said he wished to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker whether he had not powers under the Standing Orders to arrest a frivolous speech which was obviously intended, probably for an ulterior motive he was sure that the hon. baronet would not disagree with that to waste the time of the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I ask whether it is right to impute motives of that kind to any hon. Member?
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that in regard to the question which the hon. Member asked him he had to say that he had rights under the Standing Orders the exercise of which was in his discretion. In regard to the other matter, he did not think that the imputation of motive in any way reflected on the hon. Baronet.
§ Sir F. BANBURYsaid if the hon. Member had waited he would have found that he had nearly finished his remarks, and he begged to conclude by moving the omission of the clause.
Captain CRAIGin seconding the Amendment, said he would like to consider sub-section (b) of the clause, which provided that it was the duty of the local education authority to provide for the medical inspection of children before their admission to a public elementary school. It appeared to him that those words covered far more than really appeared from the clause. Was it intended to provide medical attendance for children from their birth? As the clause stood it would appear that children were to have medical attendance from the day they 37 were born, because there was no saving clause providing that the inspection should be to ensure the fitness of the children to attend the school in order to receive the benefit of the education there given. He did not so much object to inspection of the children to see that they were fit to attend school, but it would involve an enormous expense if children were to be medically attended from the day they were born. In the clause were the words "such other occasions as the Board of Education direct," which would appear to afford a very elastic loophole to the education authority. Where was the expenditure of the local rates to stop? Those who had charge of the duty of striking the rate might have definitely made up their minds not to add another penny to the rates for the coming year; but after the rate had been made, the Board of Education might direct the local authority to execute some work under this Bill, and those who had determined not to add to the rates would find themselves compelled to put them up after all. That might occur in a place already so heavily rated that the ratepayers could not bear any further burden. What would happen would be that some parents would benefit by having their children medically attended from their birth and would also, at the cost of the rates, have recreation provided for them. Some parents provided for the education of their children at their own cost, and also furnished them with amusements in their own homes; yet those parents would have also to contribute to the cost of providing medical attendance and means of recreation for the children of others. Was the parent of a child captured at the age of between three and five, possibly subject to a disease of a lingering character, to be relieved of all the expense which in ordinary circumstances was borne by parents, and was that expense to be paid by the local education authority; if not, who was to pay it?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was simply asking a series of conundrums as to what the meaning of the clause was. He thought that the hon. Member ought to explain to the House why he objected to the clause; that was not the proper occasion to ask a number of questions as to what the meaning of the clause was.
Captain CRAIGsaid by sub-section (a) they were going to empower the local education authority to tax the parents of children who would be unable to avail themselves of the privileges provided in order that the children of another section of parents might during their vacations enjoy the advantages of playing in the grounds provided for them. The words of the section were very wide indeed, and gave the local authority very large scope in interpreting the meaning of the words "means of recreation." He objected to the ratepayers being mulcted in this way, for they did not know what the clause meant, or how a local authority would construe the words "means of recreation." He objected to the ratepayers being mulcted in this way, for they did not know what the clause meant, or how a local authority would construe the words "means of recreation." They were not only asking the people to bear an unfair burden, but they were interfering with parental authority. They were empowering the local authority to provide playgrounds and amusements which would attract the children away from their homes, possibly against the wishes of the parents. Unless the hon. Member gave some indication to the House as to the real purport and scope of the clause he should vote with the hon. Baronet, and he should do so with more decision if he was assured that these means were to be left to the discretion of the local authority, which perhaps would be dominated more by sentiment than by business capacity and business considerations. The fact of its being left to the county councils might lead to the powers used at elections for currying favour, by suggesting the provision of some elaborate playground or place of amusement and recreation.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."ߞ (Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word provide, in page 1, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. W. E. REA (Scarborough)said he had not much to say in reply to the two speeches which had been made by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He, of course, deferred entirely to the hon. Baronet as an older Member of the House, but what had happened had unfortunately slipped the memory of the Member for the City of London. The hon. Baronet had forgotten that 39 during the discussion of the Education Bill last year there was absolute peace and concord over these two identical clauses, which were taken from that Bill. He claimed the support of not only hon. Members on that side of the House, but of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and, he thought, of the Leader of the Opposition himself, who both associated themselves with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to these two clauses. He thought he was right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition said that these two clauses were worth the whole of the rest of the Bill together.
§ MR. W. R. REAsaid that, at any rate, whatever its worth, the clause they were now discussing had the unanimous support of the whole of the House. When it went to another place a slight modification was made in it, but without affecting its principle. It was a modification which he had accepted, so that the Bill now stood in precisely the form in which those two clauses passed in another place, and they were among the clauses which were agreed upon when the Bill came back to the House of Commons. The hon. Baronet charged him with having brought in an ill-drafted Bill, but he thought that he was not called upon to defend himself against such a charge; he would merely shelter himself behind not only the two Houses of Parliament, but also the official draftsmen. One question had been raised by the hon. Member who had seconded the Amendment, which perhaps might be more appropriately considered on a later Amendment, in regard to medical inspection before or at the time of admission into public elementary schools. There, again, he would point out that the word "before" obviously meant that it was impossible for the inspector to inspect a number of children at the moment of their admission into the school. It was necessary to provide that some of the inspection should be carried out before the admission of the children. There was no intention, of course, of inspecting them from the time of birth, nor of providing medical attendance for children of all ages. The clause must be read as a whole, and it imposed 40 the duty of providing inspection before admission, a course which seemed right, in connection with admission into public elementary schools. He thought the House might take it that the official drafting was correct on that particular point; therefore, there was no need for the Amendments which followed later on the Paper, or for the objection of the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment. He did not think it necessary to say anything more, except in regard to the definitions. There, again, he sheltered himself behind the phrasing of the clause, and he would point out that it was very much easier to live under a certain provision than to define it. He remembered the observation of the present Secretary for India, who, asked to define an elephant, said he could not define it, but he knew an elephant when he saw it. Similarly he could not define a playground or place of recreation, but if the hon. Baronet would go with him he would be very glad to take him to see one, and show him what a play-centre was.
§ Lord R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said he had no intention of opposing the Bill, which he thought excellent and one that ought to be adopted. The House would recognise that the question was of some importance, and they really had not had any opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill. Generally speaking he agreed as to the desirability of the measure, but he had some doubt as to subsection (a). He felt that there should be some place of recreation for these children during holiday times, when they might otherwise have no resource except to play in the streets. But he was not quite sure that it was a matter which it was desirable for the State to undertake. He thought it was an exceedingly difficult thing, one of the great difficulties of modern legislation, to define exactly what the State should or should not undertake. He had some little doubt as to the effect of sub-section (a), but he gave way on that point to greater authorities who knew more about the subject than he did. The attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition had been referred to, and in view of that declaration and other circumstances he would not be able to vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. As for 41 subsection (b) it was clear that provision ought to be made for the medical inspection of children, although he was inclined to think that in some cases the parents ought to pay for it. There were strong reasons for providing for the medical inspection of children quite apart from their health. It was important that Parliament should know what was happening to the population. They ought to know whether it was a fact that town-bred children were very much weaker than country-bred children. He was in favour of the medical inspection of children, and he could not agree that it would east any hardship upon the ratepayers who had no children of their own. The only caveat he desired to enter was that he thought the promoters might consider whether some provision should not be made with reference to recovering the expense of medical attention from those parents who could afford to pay. They ought to have some regard to the parents' duties as well as their rights. In such a matter as this it should not be overlooked that anything which weakened the responsibility of the parents to provide for the health and education of their own children would be a retrograde step.
§ *Mr. REESsaid it had been assumed by some hon. Members that the children bred in the towns were weaker than those bred in the country, but that was by no means proved yet. The noble Lord opposite had also stated that he thought the expense of medical inspection should be recoverable from the parents who could afford to pay. He entirely agreed in that view. Parents should pay for their children, whenever they could.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEROrder, order. There is an Amendment down upon that point later on.
§ COLONEL LOCK WOODappealed, to the House, in the interest of the amusement, recreation, and health of the children of England, to pass the Bill. The objection of the hon. Baronet was based upon the score of expense, and although he recognised him as an economical man, he was afraid that his 42 desire for economy sometimes led him a little too far. His noble friend had said that it was difficult to draw the line as to how far the State should pay instead of the parent. Not long ago he had the honour of introducing to the President of the Board of Education an influential deputation on this very subject, and they were told that the Department had prepared a Bill under which the question of hygiene and temperance would be laid before the House. The Government had not yet given any notice of their intention to bring forward that Bill.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.)Yes, it has been introduced.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOODthought the subject was one which ought to have been dealt with in a Government measure, and not in a Bill brought forward by a private Member. The Bill was almost unanimously agreed to when it was brought forward in March last, when a discussion took place in which the Leader of the Opposition, in expressing his approval of the proposal, said he hoped the Government Bill would provide that the enormous burden thrown by primary education upon the ratepayers would not be augmented by a measure the general provisions of which they all desired to see carried out. He had not seen the Government Bill, but he presumed that the Member for Scarborough would hardly claim that this Bill would not increase the rates. As a large ratepayer he would object to a substantial increase of the rates; but the small increase of the rates which the Bill might cause would be as nothing compared with the advantages to the nation in the improvement of the health and physical condition of the children attending the elementary schools. He would like to see the establishment of a medical bureau in connection with the Board of Education. He would also like to see a course of instruction in hygiene forming part of the training of the teachers, so that they might be able to teach the children how to attend to their physical condition. The Bill was a step in that direction, and as such it had his support. The deputation to which he had alluded emphasised strongly the necessity of having a 43 thorough supervision of the health of the children of the country, and that all the information it was possible to get on the question should be carefully collected, and kept by the Education Department. Through the kindness of a gentleman in the medical profession he had had the advantage of having the children attending the village school of which he was the chairman of the managers thoroughly examined, and he had been able to make a most interesting and instructive comparison with a school near London. He hoped that such a medical inspection would be carried out in every school in the country. The provision for the training of the teachers in the matter of hygiene and temperance opened up a very large question which he was afraid would entail a considerable amount of expense. He would not begrudge the expense if he could be assured that the scheme provided would produce a body of teachers capable of thoroughly instructing the children in all the subjects connected with hygiene and temperance. It was because he foresaw in this Bill considerable possibilities in that direction that he was induced to recommend its adoption so strongly to the House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not now discussing the whole Bill. It is true that Clause 1 is practically the whole Bill, but it was discussed at length on the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to Clause 1 and not discuss the Bill as a whole.
§ COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid that if the hon. Baronet's Motion were adopted the whole Bill would be defeated and he was anxious to prevent such a catastrophe.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)said he deeply regretted that he was unable to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. In supporting the clause he did not feel that he was departing from the principles which were accepted on that side of the House when the matter was discussed last year. He was fortified in taking that course by the opinion which was then expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. They were 44 all agreed that vacation schools were very desirable things for the reason that in the large towns in holiday time the children lost the comfort and society of the school and its playground and were driven to play on the streets. Vacation schools in which organised play could be provided, and in which lighter educational work could be done, mainly of a manual character, would be of very great value to the children attending the elementary schools. In the country districts he thought the children were very well able to look after themselves. But he would like to be sure that proper use had been made, and would be made, of the voluntary agencies which had hitherto worked the vacation schools. It was eminently a question in which voluntary effort should be associated with that of the local authority, because there was work in the vacation schools which could be better and more usefully done by voluntary agencies than by the local authority. On the other hand, the direction of the local authority was of very great importance to give permanence and stability to, and to ensure the proper conducting of, the work.
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid the promoters of the Bill accepted in Committee a proviso in the following terms—
Provided that in any exercise of powers under this section the local education authority may encourage and assist the establishment or continuance of voluntary agencies, and associate with itself representatives of voluntary associations for the purpose.
§ *Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would have liked the proviso to say that the local education authority "wherever possible shall encourage and assist" the voluntary agencies.
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid the words suggested by the hon. Baronet would more properly form the subject of another Amendment.
§ *Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was entitled to discuss the general principle of the clause. As to medical inspection, the clause dealing with it was worth all the rest of last year's Education Bill; and he was convinced that such inspection would be of infinite value to the health of the country. He wished to know from 45 the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, whether he was right in supposing that the fear expressed by his hon. friend behind him was somewhat groundless with respect to the words in the clause. "before or at the time of their admission." He did not think the words would give the right to inspect children from the time they were born, because, after all, the powers were given not to the local authority, but to the local education authority, and they could only concern themselves with children who had entered, or were about to enter, public elementary schools. There was some ground he thought for the question which had been raised as to what was meant by the words "the power to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools." A committee had made careful inquiry into the subject of medical inspection of school children, and, so far as he could follow their report, the inspection would not be a very expensive matter. The charge upon the rates for this purpose need not in urban places come to more than one-tenth of a penny. If they were to add medical attendance for children, then the matter became more serious, and the question arose whether the parents might not be called upon to contribute towards the cost incurred. The question of additional medical staff for the Board of Education and the question of an anthropometrical survey, which were referred to by his hon. friend, were not raised by this measure. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass through the House that afternoon.
§ *Sir FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said that in the course of the week he had on the Paper a Question to the Prime Minister in regard to this subject, and he had on two occasions been requested to postpone it. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there was on the Table of the House a Bill dealing with the very matter which they were now discussing. The subject of vacation schools, therefore, came before them practically as a ministerial proposition. He thought that those who like himself were friends of education had every reason to complain of the course taken by the Government. He also 46 complained that the Prime Minister had not answered his question. Last year this clause passed both Houses of Parliament. In this matter their only desire was to promote the health and well-being of the children. It was a case in which the argument of economy was,wholly misplaced, for he did not believe it was economy to allow the physical condition of the children to deteriorate. As to the opposition to sub-section (a) he cared little for the opinion of those who desired to see the children driven into the streets during the holidays. As to sub-section (b), he was glad that an advance had been made in recent years in regard to medical inspection. Those who visited the schools could not help seeing what need there was for such inspection. Some children were suffering from diseases which might have been stopped if timely inspection had taken place. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass.
§ Sir F. BANBURYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ * Sir FRANCIS POWELLmoved an Amendment to give the local education authority power to "take such steps as they may think fit in order to" provide vacation schools, classes, and play centres. He said the Amendment was proposed in the most friendly spirit. It should be borne in mind that in this matter they were not dealing with the local education authority alone; the co-operation of voluntary agencies was expected. He thought, therefore, if the words of the Amendment were inserted, the intention of the clause would be made clearer. A condition similar to what he proposed was contained in the Provision of Meals Act of last year.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill.—
In page 1, line 7, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'take such steps as they think tit in order to.' "—( Sir Francis Powell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid he was sure the hon. Baronet's desire was to strengthen the Bill, but it appeared to him that the 47 Amendment would not tend in that direction. The clause was drafted by the official draftsman of last year's Bill. The proviso at the end of the clause was arrived at as the result of a large amount of discussion between the contending parties.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said the Amendment was not necessary. The Provision of Meals Act was not a parallel case. They were not all agreed last year as to the steps they should take. Some thought that the local education authority should provide the machinery and equipment, and that voluntary agencies should supply the food.
§ Sir FRANCIS POWELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
In page 1, line 9, after the word 'or' to insert the word 'other.' "—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'local' to insert the word 'education."— (Mr. Bridgeman.)
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUSmoved to leave out the words requiring medical inspection to take place "before or at the time of" admission to the school, in order to insert words permitting the inspection to take place "at any time within twelve months after" the child's admission to school. He saw that there would be very great difficulty in the inspection of the children at the time of their admission into the elementary schools. Children were drafted into the public elementary schools from the infant schools in September. It was quite true that the medical inspection might be made before, but that raised a very great difficulty 48 which had been suggested by an hon. Member that the medical inspection might go on over the entire infancy of the child. It would be seen at once from the clause as it stood that a very large number of inspectors would be required if the inspection of all the children were made at the commencement of the session. He did not wish to suggest anything which would interfere with the excellent intention of the clause. He was sorry that he did not get an opportunity in Committee of expressing his entire approval of the general scope of the Bill, which, he hoped, would be carried this session; but he thought the Amendment would considerably facilitate the inspection of the children, and prevent the employment of a large number of inspectors. He beg to move.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded the Amendment. He could not impress too strongly on the House the absolute necessity of limiting in some way the time at which the children were to be medically inspected. The case for the Amendment amounted to this, that where children were compelled to attend a school, and where it was necessary to have medical inspection to see that they were not carrying with them any infectious disease, the inspection should not take place all on the same day. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept the limitation proposed in the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words ' before, or at the time of' and insert the words 'at any time within twelve months after.' "— (Sir Philip Magnus.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid that he was willing to accept the Amendment if it was so altered that the inspection might take place within twelve months before or after admission to the public elementary schools. He thought that would put an end to the whole difficulty.
§ *Sir FRANCIS POWELLthought that there should be inspection continuing during the. whole time the child was at school.
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid that the hon. Baronet had lost sight of the second portion of sub-section (b) which covered the object which he had in view.
§ *Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he hoped the words in the Bill would be retained. What was really very important was that the children should be inspected as near as possible to the time they entered the public elementary schools. If the inspection were made, as the hon. Member in charge of the Bill now proposed, at any time within twelve months before or after the child was admitted to the public elementary school the inspection would not do the work expected of it. The child's eyesight or its hearing might be defective, and if this were not ascertained he might get into scrapes for not seeing what was written on a blackboard, or not noticing the orders of his teacher, or the child's physical condition might make it undesirable for it to play certain games or to take part in the physical exercises required of it. All those things should be known when the child went to school, and to postpone the inspection until twelve months after its arrival in school would be to lose a great deal of the value of inspection. On the other hand, to make the inspection twelve months before admission was unwise, because all manner of things might have happened in the meantime. He wished that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education would turn their attention to the necessity of the child being inspected at the time or as near as possible before it entered a public elementary school.
§ *MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottenham)said he trusted that the hon. Member for London University would withdraw his Amendment. As showing the necessity of examining the child immediately after admission to the school, he pointed to the fact that in some German schools as many as 34 per cent. were sent back as not physically fit to receive education. If they were unfit and they continued in school the public money would be wasted.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKhoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill 50 would adhere to the words of the clause as it stood. The words "before or at the time of" were perfectly well understood. Sometimes, for convenience sake, it might be necessary to submit the child to examination a few hours or it might be a few weeks before entering the school; but the local education authority had nothing whatever to do with the child twelve months before it entered the school. Anyone acquainted with educational matters knew that the words "before, or at the time of" were words of technical usage, which were perfectly understood.
§ *MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to help the House to find the words which would carry out the object they all had in view, viz.: to ensure that there should be a medical inspection of all children admitted to Elementary Schools. Before they came to School, the Board of Education had nothing to do with them.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid he was not responsible for the wording of the Bill, which had been considered by the draftsman. He admitted that there would be a practical difficulty if all the children were inspected at the time of admission to school. He thought it might be easy to adopt words which would cover that difficulty. He suggested that the most convenient form of words would be "immediately before, at the time of, or as soon as possible after" the child entered the school.
§ *SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he would be quite willing if the House desired it to accept the words suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, but he could not help thinking that the words of his original Amendment "that it is the duty of the local education authority to provide for medical inspection of children before, or as soon as possible after, their admission to public elementary schools" were better. He would further like to say that there was some medical and educational advantage in the proposal, as the teacher would have an opportunity of ascertaining for himself or herself what was the health of the children. The medical inspection would be more useful if it took place some time after the children attended the school. 51 He therefore placed before the House his original Amendment, and that was after the word "or" to insert "as soon as possible after."
§ Sir F. BANBURYsaid he did not know where they were. He understood that the Amendment of his hon. friend was going to be accepted except in regard to the words "before or." It would probably be convenient, therefore, if he gave his objection to the words "before or."
§ Mr. H. J. TENNANT (Berwickshire),on a point of order, asked whether, as they were discussing the words "before or at the time of," it was in order to go back and discuss the words "before or."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the words could be discussed, because the words "before or" were part of the words "before or at the time of."
Sir F. BANBURY"said he objected to the words "before or" because they would give a roving commission to the medical inspector to inspect a child at any time before it entered the school. His object was to limit the inspection of the children to the time when they went into the school. They all recognised that the children should be medically inspected as soon as possible afterwards, because medical officers could not always examine children at the time when they went into the school. He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "before or," but if his hon. friend moved the new Amendment which he had suggested his Amendment fell to the ground. An hon. friend behind him suggested that his objection would be met by the insertion of the word "immediately" before the word "before." He saw no objection to that, and if the hon. Gentleman whose Amendment they were discussing would accept that he would say no more.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said he understood that the proposal was that the medical inspection of the children, if it was to be useful, should be carried out before their admission or at the time or shortly afterwards. He thought administrative difficulties would probably occur in large urban populations if they were to insist on the inspection being made available at or about the time of the children's admission to school. It was not the business of the local authority to inspect prior to admission. The best time was shortly afterwards, because teachers, when they had become familiar with the children, were able to indicate to the medical officer certain diseases or defects which they thought the children were suffering from. Therefore he thought the co-operation of the teacher with the medical officer would be secured if the words "as soon as possible after "could be incorporated in the clause.
§ MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)suggested that the clause should be made to run: "The duty to provide for the medical inspection of children at the time of, or as soon as possible after, the admission of a child to a public elementary school." That would carry out the idea of the hon. Member with which he agreed.
§ Mr. CARLILEasked what was the position of the children in the infant schools. He understood the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to say that it only applied to elementary schools, and did not apply to infant schools. He wanted an assurance that the children in the infant schools would be included and would be subject to the same inspection as the children in the elementary schools.
§ Mr. LOUGHsuggested that the most convenient form of words would be "immediately before, or at the time of, or as soon as possible after" the admission of the child. He thought the House might accept that.
§
Amendments—
In page 1, line 17, at beginning to insert the word ' immediately;'
In page 1, line 17, after the word 'of' to insert the words ' or as soon as possible after,' "—
§ Agreed to.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he wished to move the omission of the words which provided that medical inspection of children should take place "on such other occasions" as the Board of Education directed. He thought that after the compromise which had just been arrived at with the assent of both sides of the House, under which the inspection was to take place "immediately before, or at the time of, or as soon as possible after," the question was left in such a precise manner that if the words to which he objected were permitted to stand in sub-section (b) it would simply mean that the Board of Education might by a stroke of the pen go back to the objectionable position which they were in under the Bill as it came before the House. The clause as it stood would protect the children as a whole, and why afterwards the Board of Education should have this power, he could not see. He could conceive cases in which the local education authority made complete arrangements for inspection, and after a thorough inspection had been carried out the Board of Education might insist upon another.
§ Sir F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, because the Bill as it at present stood would give the Board of Education power to override and upset the decisions of the local education authority. It seemed to him that if the words were retained, they would give the Board of Education a great deal more power than was necessary.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words ' and on such other occasions as the Board of Education direct.' "—(Captain Craig,)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. W. R. REAwas sorry he could not accept the Amendment. They had made a compromise on the earlier portion of the clause, and that rendered it all the more necessary that they should stand firm in regard to the latter portion.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could not help thinking that his hon. friend did not quite realise the effect of this clause, and how much his proposal, if carried, would undo the whole value of the scheme. The Board of Education would, no doubt, lay down regulations which would prevent the local education authority from running into extreme action in regard to inspection. It was important that the local inspector should be able to say that such and such a child in one of his schools wanted attention, and ask that that child should be brought to him again so that he might examine it. It was necessary, therefore, that there should be periodical inspection, and they ought to leave to the local authority the power of making suggestions to the Board of Education and to leave to that Board the power of guiding the local authority in regard to that inspection.
§ COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid he knew there would be many cases in which the local education authority would come into conflict with the Board of Education, but he thought the latter were by far the best judges of what was necessary in the way of inspection. There were many sources of information which were possessed by the Board of Education alone and were not available to the local education authority. The information was of a most valuable character, and, therefore, he trusted that the words in question would not be omitted.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman 55 on the front bench he felt reassured, and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. ASHLEYmoved to insert a proviso to the effect that any expenses incurred under the Act for attending to the health and physical condition of children should be recoverable from the parents of the children in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. He said he had not the slightest objection to the community paying the cost of the schools of education, or of medical inspection. Those were matters which ought to be attended to by the nation, but he thought that where arrangements had been made for attending to the health and physical condition of a child attending a public elementary school, in cases where the parent was in a position to pay, if possible, he should be made to pay. He thought the local authority should be given this power, because medical inspection might disclose the fact that the children wanted clothes in order to attend to their health and physical condition. They might want spectacles, and so on. Moreover, they might want merely to be properly washed and cleaned, and if the local education authority took steps to have them washed and cleaned they might go back to their parents' home and become dirty again. They would go to the root of the evil if they made a parent, when he was able to, pay the cost of keeping his children healthy, and he would send his children to school in a clean condition and also see that in other respects they were properly clothed and attended to if it were so enacted.
§ Sir F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, which he said was practically a proposal for making the parent pay the cost of keeping his children. It was a little difficult to follow because it was not on the Paper, but in certain eases it provided that the local authority 56 should recover from the parent the expense which they had been put to. He did not think that hon. Members below the gangway could contend that where medical attendance had been given in consequence of the neglect of a parent, that parent, if he was well off enough to pay, should not be made to pay. It seemed to him impossible for anyone to object to the Amendment, because if the Bill were carried without it the ratepayers would be called upon to pay for medical attendance for the children of people who were perfectly well able to pay for it themselves.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 23, at the end to insert the word 'provided that any expense incurred under this Act for attending to the health and physical condition of the children shall be recoverable from the parents of the children in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ Mr. W. R. REAsaid he could not possibly accept such an Amendment as this. He had not seen the actual wording of the Amendment, and therefore it was difficult to deal with, but it seemed quite impossible to say for whose benefit a great part of the medical attention, if there was medical attention, was given, and in most cases it was so minute that it was impossible to charge for it. The Amendment raised a much larger point than anything they had been discussing, namely, the question of how much parents were to be called upon to contribute. He really thought, if his hon. friend wished to do anything with that question, he ought to bring in a separate Bill and not try to graft totally extraneous matter on the measure before the House.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILsaid that if the parent could pay for medical inspection or attendance which was for the improvement of the physical condition of his children, there was no 57 question but that he should do so. This was a very important Amendment. He thought that now-a-days the tendency was to go too much in the direction of State socialism. He felt very strongly that parents ought to be made to feel the responsibility of their position, and everything that tended in the other direction was deleterious to the welfare of the nation. In view of the very positive attitude taken up by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill he thought it was their duty to divide the House.
§ *Sir WILLIAM ANSONsaid he was anxious not to delay the House, but he thought hon. Members were entitled to some explanation of what was meant by the words of the clause under consideration. He felt very strongly that the cost of medical inspection such as the local education authority was to provide, would be so small that it would not be worth while to charge the parents, but on the other hand arrangements for the health and physical condition of the children might mean a great deal, and he thought they were entitled to know from the Secretary to the Board of Education what was meant by those words.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSON (Elgin and Nairn)said the Amendment would have a much more far-reaching effect than the hon. Member contemplated. A scheme for attending to the health of the children was at work in a school with which he was connected at Liverpool, a large number of the children of which were nursed by trained nurses who attended to those infantile diseases and complaints which good mothers attended to themselves. The Board of Education had been for years willing to assist in that work, but owing to red tape they had been unable to give any grant. One of the great objects of the Bill was that they should be able to give grants to such charitable institutions to assist them in carrying on their good work. It was now suggested that if a grant of 58 £100 was given to a charitable institution that that 100 was to be recovered from the parents. That was what would happen if the Amendment were carried. As to the meaning of "a scheme," what he thought the Government had in their mind was to assist those voluntary institutions. He hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment, having regard to how very seriously it would affect that object if it were carried.
§ Mr. LOUGHsaid the Bill simply gave power to the local authorities to make such arrangements as the Board of Education might approve. The effect of that was that, first of all, a scheme must be approved by the local authority, and after that by the Board of Education. He thought the House might be perfectly satisfied that there would not be undue extravagance. He had been to the school alluded to by his hon. friend and he saw there no less than forty children on one particular morning being attended by one of these nurses. The ailments were very slight, but it was of the utmost importance in the interests of the health of all the children in the schools that they should be attended to. The Amendment provided that that work should not be done unless the parents paid for it, or at all events it gave the local authority power to follow the parents for the trifling cost entailed. He reminded the House the clause in this Bill was carried unanimously by the House last year, and under those circumstances he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECILbelieved the Amendment would make entirely for the larger working of the measure. It merely provided that in particular cases the local authority should be empowered to recover certain expenses. If the Amendment were rejected, only the smallest and most insignificant services would be rendered to the children, because the local authority would be reluctant to incur expense.
§ Mr. ASHLEYsaid that if the Amendment were not accepted he would be compelled to go to a division.
Captain CRAIGsaid in order that the House might clearly understand what they were voting for he would point out that Sir Charles Bine Renshaw computed that the cost of the Bill so far as Scotland was concerned would be between £300,000 and £400,000. Hon. Members would be able to calculate for themselves what the cost for England and Wales would be unless some
| The House divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes, 229; (Division List, No. 234.) |
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F. | Fletcher, J. S. | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Helmsley, Viscount | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester | Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm'd | Thomson, V..Mitchell-( Lanark) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bignold. Sir Arthur | Law. Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Verney, F. W. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Liddell, Henry | Wolff Gustav Wilhelm |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lockwood Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col A.R. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart- |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—. |
| Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Mr. Ashley and Lord Robert Cecil |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Moore, William | |
| Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Roes, J. D. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Byles, William Pollard | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cameron, Robert | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) |
| Alden, Percy | Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight | Erskine. David C. |
| Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Esslemont. George Birnie |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cheetham, John Frederick | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cleland, J. W. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Ffrench, Peter |
| Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Barker, John | Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grmst'd | Findlay, Alexander |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cory, Clifford John | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Beale, W. P. | Craik, Sir Henry | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crean, Eugene | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) |
| Benn.W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. | Crosfield, A. H. | Gill, A. H. |
| Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'rd | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Ginnell, L. |
| Billson, Alfred | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Branch, James | Delany, William | Grant, Corrie |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Gulland, John W. |
| Bright, J. A. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | (Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Brunner,J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh) | Donelan, Captain A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Brunner,Rt HnSirJT(Cheshire) | Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Harrington. Timothy |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Duncan,Robert (Lanark,G'van | Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire.N.E. |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
§ such Amendment as that now proposed were agreed to.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOODpointed out that no answer had been given to the question of his hon. friend as to the meaning of the words "arrangements for the health and physical condition of the children." Did they mean hygiene and sanitation as well as these other things, because if they did that opened up a very large question.
§ Question put.
61| Haworth, Arthur A. | Massie, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hazel,.Dr. A. E. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D. |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Meagher, Michael | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Menzies, Walter | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Mond, A. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Henry, Charles S. | Montagu, E. S. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Hogan, Michael | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Morpeth, Viscount | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Morrell, Philip | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Murray, James | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholls, George | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nolan, Joseph | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hudson, Walter | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Nuttall, Harry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Jackson, R. S. | O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ. |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Dowd, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea | O'Grady, J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Malley, William | Thomas, Aberl(Camarthen,E.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas,David Alfred (.Merthyr |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Joyce,.Michael | Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke | Tomkinson, James |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Toulmin, George |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Priestley,W. E. B. ((Bradford, E) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. | Wason,John Catheart( Orkney) |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Lamont, Norman | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Renton, Major Leslie | Weir, James Galloway |
| Levy, Maurice | Rickett, J. Compton | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Ridsdale, E. A. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Lough, Thomas | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Lundon, W. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Robertson,Sir G.Scott( Bradf'rd | Williamson, A. |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.) | Robson, Sir William Snowden | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.) | Rowlands, J. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Runciman, Walter | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| M'Crae, George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) ' | Yoxall, James Henry |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Trevelyan. |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | |
| Maddison, Frederick | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | |
| Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston) | Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester) | |
| Marnham, F. J. | Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under Lyne |
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit the word "may" and insert "shall," the object being to compel the local education authority to assist the establishment of voluntary agencies. The Amendment was moved in Committee, but rejected. Nevertheless, he thought it was a very good Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 25, to leave out the word ' may ' and insert the word ' shall.' "—( Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
§ *Mr. REESsaid he was the author of this proviso, and he submitted it upstairs to the Committee with the word "shall,' and still thought it should run in those words. However, the proviso as now found in the Bill was the result of a compromise in the House of Lords, and as the Committee had inserted that proviso, he though the must keep faith 63 by supporting the Bill as it stood. He thought in the interests of economy, and for the due protection of the ratepayers the word should have been "shall," but as he wished the Bill to pass he would not detain the House further in arguing that question. In his opinion ratepayers were sufficiently mulcted in all directions already, and he thought that the local authority should be bound to avail itself of all the voluntary aid it could get. If the hon. Baronet proceeded to a division, he should, of course, support him, but he presumed the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ Mr. W. R REAsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The matter was discussed at length in Grand Committee and another place, and the clause was the result of the compromise arrived at.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.