§ 68. Mr. VIANTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the education authority of Wolverhampton has recently initiated a prosecution against Ernest Henry Gwinnett for cruelty to his daughter, Gertrude Lily, aged six, by failing to provide adequate medical aid in the matter of enlarged tonsils; that the only evidence tendered for the prosecution was that of three school medical officers and a schoolmistress; that the senior medical officer stated that the only possible remedy was a surgical operation; that a conviction was recorded, that, on an adjournment, as a result of the intervention of a local branch of the Distributist League, Mr. Gwinnett was represented, and two qualified London physicians in person, two more by affidavit, and one by certificate testified that the child was not suffering and that alternative treatment was practicable; and that this case was concluded on payment of a nominal fine of £2 without costs on an undertaking being given that treatment should continue; whether any expense has been incurred by the education authority; and whether he will advise local education authorities not to institute further prosecutions of parents on such grounds?
§ Lord E. PERCYI have seen a Press report of the case referred to. I understand that it was stated on behalf of the Local Education Authority that it was not their intention to force an operation on Mr. Gwinnett's child, and that all they required was that some treatment should be applied which would be as effective as an operation in curing the child. I have no information as to the expenditure, if any, incurred by the Local Education Authority in connection with the proceedings. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 24th January to the question of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson).