HC Deb 09 May 1944 vol 399 cc1814-7
Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move, in page 30, line 30, at the end, to insert: (4) In any proceedings for an offence against this Section a medical certificate signed by the medical practitioner who has attended the child, and showing at what times (if any) he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness shall be produced to the court by the prosecution and received as evidence. May I first make it clear as rekards the drafting of this Amendment that I am sure that the debating skill of the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to find many loopholes in it. But I want to impress on the House and on the Minister the need to do something in this respect. In my experience of sitting upon a bench of magistrates I have on more than one occasion noticed the disadvantage which people who are charged with offences against school attendance legislation suffer from under the existing procedure. The poorer the parents, the less able they are to present their case when they are summoned for not sending their child to school. The reason is that the parents must prove to the court that the child was prevented from attending by sickness or by any unavoidable cause. To do that, they must either bring to court the doctor who attends the child, which means that they have to pay the doctor for attendance at the court, or they have to send medical certificates either to the court or to the education authority. In a number of cases recently it has been brought to the attention of the bench on which I sit that doctors vary in the charges they make for these medical certificates. Many doctors charge 3s. 6d. for each certificate for each day on which the child is absent. When it is a case of reviewing a period of half a year, it is quite beyond the pocket of a poor patient to pay that sum for the medical certificates necessary.

The bench, when these cases are brought before them, have a chart, produced by the local education authority, showing what number of attendances in the period under review the child has missed. It would be convenient if the bench could have the same kind of medical testimony for the child for the same period. I can instance a case before the bench on which I sit, in which we had a very bad attendance record. When one learned that the child suffered from three major contagious diseases in the same period, the matter took on a different light. In that case, although there was a considerable amount of doubt, the bench had in justice to dismiss the summons, because there was no evidence as to which absences were unavoidable through sickness or which were through some cause which would be culpable under the Act. I ask the Minister, if he is unable to accept my drafting which is very amateurish, to look into this matter, either now or preferably in another place, and secure that in these cases parents have justice, whether they are rich or poor.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do this though, like my hon. Friend, I agree with it more in the spirit than in the letter. I do feel that there is a substantial measure of hardship in these cases in which it is up to the parents to prove why the child has had to be away from school. They have to arrange for that proof to be submitted to the court by a medical authority. That costs them money as the matter stands at the present time. Therefore, whichever way the case may go it does amount, in fact, unwittingly, to an automatic imposition of a financial penalty upon the parents, if their child is subject to a prosecution for nonattendance at school. I am well aware that that is the last thing my right hon. Friend would wish to carry into practice. While I appreciate that the wording of the Amendment may possibly cause him a little inconvenience, and while I realise still more that it may cause practical difficulties in its execution, I hope, like my hon. Friend, that it may be the means of raising the issue so that my right hon. Friend, with his greater experience, can find a way over this difficulty.

Mr. Ede

Far be it from me to criticise the wording of an Amendment moved, I understand, by two Members of the legal profession. I occasionally hear criticism as beween lawyer and lawyer on drafting, but I always keep outside. I find that the phrase that is most acceptable to the lawyer is, as a rule, the one which is least understandable by me. The mover and the Seconder have explained clearly what is the point with which they wish to deal. I will endeavour to deal with that in general terms.

It may be that there are some doctors who charge, or attempt to charge, a working class parent 3s. 6d. for a medical certificate. In the course of my administrative experience, my difficulty has been with the doctor who charges 3d. for a medical certificate, and appears to be willing to give them in considerable numbers and frequency at that price. He is a not inconsiderable interferer with the course of educational administration on occasions. Quite clearly, if illness is the excuse alleged, there must be some proof that a child was absent from school because of illness. I know of no case which a medical certificate has been submitted to a local education authority, where, after that submission, a prosecution has ensued. I should be very surprised if there are any such cases. I have known local education authorities say, "If you desire to allege illness and say that the child is not physically fit to attend school, and you cannot afford to have a doctor's certificate we will arrange for one of the school doctors to see the child, and give you the benefit of his service. He will advise us whether the child ought to be kept away from school or not."

This Amendment would put the prosecution in a somewhat anomalous position. They are asked to produce the evidence for the defence. If the defence is illness they are supposed, I understand from the Amendment, to produce a medical certificate and pay for it. If it is wrong for the parent to be charged 3s. 6d. for a doctor's certificate in this case, especially in the kind of continuing case to which my hon. Friend referred, I should have thought it was equally wrong for the local education authority to be expected to pay 3s. 6d.

Mr. Turton

The point is, whereas a parent has probably to get 100 certificates to cover each occasion the child was absent, this Amendment would mean the production of only one certificate showing the child's history for the whole period.

Mr. Ede

It seems to me to be one of those matters which really ought to be taken up with the medical profession with a view to getting them to exercise some reasonable influence upon the members of their organisation. They appear to be quite capable of dealing with their members and getting corporate action from them when they require it. I should have thought that that was the proper way in which to do it. Quite clearly, the hon. Member does not expect us to put these words in the Bill in the form in which they stand. I recognise that there may on occasion be difficulties through a parent, whose child is genuinely ill, not being able to produce a medical certificate, or even coming to court not knowing that he ought to bring a medical certificate with him. I will undertake to have this examined, to see if there is any possible way of making the course of the parent who ought to be protected made more easy than it is at present. I will also consider whether something can be done with the medical profession with a view to dealing with the situation which my hon. Friend has brought to our attention. Again, I cannot see that the local education authority should be entitled to one certificate for 100 absences, but that the parent should not be entitled to one certificate for the same number of absences if it is to be given by the same doctor. If it is possible to deal with the case of the parent who has a genuine grievance we will endeavour to find words which will be inserted in another place.

Mr. Turton

On that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.