HC Deb 09 May 1944 vol 399 cc1832-9
Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 41, line 46, to leave out from the beginning to "reasonable," in line 47, and to insert: A local education authority may, by directions in writing issued with respect to all schools maintained by them or with respect to any of such schools named in the directions, authorise a medical officer of the authority to cause examinations of the persons and clothing of pupils in attendance at such schools to be made whenever in his opinion such examinations are necessary in the interests of cleanliness; and if a medical officer of a local education authority has. I am afraid we shall have to spend some little time on these Amendments to Clause 52. They deal with a matter which is of great difficulty in the education service. I think some people first became aware of the problem, which had confronted local education authorities for many years, when they were faced with some of the results of evacuation, and when the condition of a comparatively small minority of the children gave rise to very great feelings of dismay on the part of a large number of people in the country. Those of us who have been associated with the elementary schools for many years have known of the existence of this problem, and I hope that the light directed upon it at the time of the evacuation will, in the days of peace, enable us to grapple with it more successfully than we have been sometimes able to do in the past. Also, since the evacuation we have had the publication of that volume called "Our Towns" which also dealt with this difficult problem. Now we have to act in the interests of the clean child, quite as much as against the parents of the lousy child, because the unfortunate thing at a school inspection is that sometimes the child on whom the vermin is discovered by the nurse is not the child who brought the vermin to school. If there is one thing that stands in the way of our getting a really national system of education, with a greater application of the common school principle than we now have, it is this problem of the vermin which are found in certain schools.

This Amendment deals with the case where it is necessary to take the most drastic action; that is to say, where a local education authority feels that in the interests of all the children in the school there should be a general inspection of the school to ascertain whether any children are in a verminous condition. It is a terrible comment on our civilisation that we should have to move such a Clause, but in this matter we must face the facts, and the sooner we face them and endeavour to discover a remedy for the ills those facts reveal, the better for all of us. Therefore, in this first Amendment, we give the local education authority the power to inspect all its schools in what I imagine will be the more general case. In the case of particular schools, where it is feared that this difficulty is fairly large, a general inspection of the children may take place. This is stronger than the Clause as originally drafted. The Amendments we are introducing throughout this Clause are in the direction of strengthening it, and are the result—let us be quite frank—of representations we have received from local authorities all over the country that they desire that their powers in this matter should be ample. I hope we shall realise, in considering these Amendments, that we are really acting in the interests of the children whose parents take a pride in their cleanliness, and who are sometimes dismayed at the results of their attendance at certain schools. I hope we shall have the support of the House in endeavouring to strengthen this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 41, line 48, leave out from "attendance," to "at," in page 42, line 1.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 42, line 3, to leave out from "made," to "authority," in line 4, and to insert: (2) Any such examination as aforesaid shall he made by a person authorised by the local education. This is a little more than consequential. We desire to emphasise the division of this matter, and so we propose to start a new Subsection at the point indicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 5, leave out "the pupil is found by the," and insert "any pupil is found upon such an."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 42, line 16, to leave out "a medical officer of the authority," and to insert "such person as may be specified in the notice."

It has been represented that under the Clause as it stands it will be necessary for the medical officer himself to be satisfied that the cleansing has been properly carried out. This reform will be difficult in practice. I am quite sure hon. Members will realise that, where the local education authority has 100,000 children to deal with, it would be almost impossible for the scheme to be administered if the words were strictly interpreted, and so we propose the Amendment as set out.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannon, Eastern)

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there will be some assurance that it will be a suitable person? The words "such person" might mean anyone, and there will need to be some safeguard that the person is a nurse or some other suitable person.

Mr. Ede

Yes, Sir. We are dealing with responsible education officers in the counties and county boroughs.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 18, leave out from "if," to "then," in line 20, and insert: upon a report being made to him by that person at the expiration of that period a medical officer of the authority is not satisfied that the person and clothing of the pupil have been properly cleansed."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Silkin

I beg to move, in page 42, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 32.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving earlier Amendments, said that they were designed to strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with dis-infestation. This Amendment is intended to speed up the process of dis-infestation. In the provision that is now being made hon. Members will find that notice has to be served on the parent where the local authority is satisfied that the clothing or person of the pupil requires to be cleansed. The parent then has the opportunity, within a certain time, of saying that he will not permit his child or its clothing to be cleansed. In that case the local authority is obliged to take proceedings against the parent and obtain an order from a court of summary jurisdiction. The Parliamentary Secretary laid stress on the fact that these provisions were being made in the interests of clean children. If this procedure is carried through to the end it may take 10 days or a fortnight before an order can be made by the court and during the whole of that time the child who is infested may be attending school—there is nothing to prevent it from doing so—and will have an opportunity of infesting clean children.

I suggest that this procedure is too leisurely. It assumes that the medical officer of the local authority does not recognise a child who is not clean and that magistrates are in a better position than he is to decide that a child ought to be cleansed. I do not see how magistrates can over-ride a medical officer, and I do not think the point of giving a parent the opportunity of explaining to magistrates why his child should not be cleansed is a good one. Furthermore, there is no such procedure in the existing legislation; this is an innovation. While I have every desire that parents should have every opportunity of making representations to court on a matter of this sort, it can only have the effect of still further increasing the evil. It will considerably hamper local authorities in going on with the work, and cause difficulties for teachers, who may be called upon to give evidence in court. I do not understand why this proviso has been introduced, and I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to delete it from the Bill in order to strengthen and speed up this very essential procedure.

Mr. Wilmot

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. Nobody wishes that highhanded action should be taken by an education authority but I think the House should remember that this is a retrogressive step and that it is already provided in the Bill that before a child can be cleansed by a local authority the parents must have notice served upon them that the child is verminous, and must be cleansed by them within 24 hours. It is only if they refuse to take heed of the notice served upon them, and if they persist in allowing the child to remain verminous, that the education authority has power to carry out the cleansing. I should have thought that serving the notice was safeguard enough to give a parent the opportunity of obstructing the local authority still further by requiring them to get a court order in every case.

Mr. Ede

In moving this Amendment, my hon. Friend suggested that an infested child may be continuing at school while the process with regard to this order was running. By Sub-section (7) of the Clause, if a child is in this condition it would be the duty of the medical officer or other officer concerned to exclude it from attendance. In the past, one of the most effective ways of dealing with this type of parent has been to exclude the child from school and then summon the parent for non-attendance of the child at school.

Mr. Silkin

The whole purpose of giving the parent the right to go to court, is to challenge the fact that the child is verminous. If there is a dispute about the matter, how can the medical officer, while the dispute is going on, exclude the child from school?

Mr. Ede

He can do that effectively, because each time the child appears at school it is refused admission while the exclusion order is running.

Mr. Silkin

He has no power or right to do it.

Mr. Ede

It is quite clear, by Subsection (7) of this Clause, that he has. The whole issue between my hon. Friends and myself is this: ought a parent have the right of appeal to a court? I cannot help thinking that it is right that a parent who objects to his child being cleansed at a public cleansing station—because that is what the objection is to—should have a right to that objection.

Mr. Wilmot

He can cleanse the child himself. Surely that is the best possible right.

Mr. Ede

Yes, he can do that and if he has done so within 24 hours he would not incur the necessity for the order. The dispute may go back to the first notice that the child should be cleansed. I have dealt with this matter, both as a teacher and as an administrator, and I know the feeling that is aroused in certain parents. I should have thought it was desirable, providing the child is excluded from school while the dispute is going on, that unless the doctor discovers it has been cleansed during that period, a citizen should have the right of appeal in this matter to a court. After all, it is inflicting a considerable stigma, both on the child and the family, if the child has to be taken to a public cleansing station to be submitted to the processes which result in his being cleansed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page line 8, to leave out Sub-section (5).

When we came to review this Clause, it was felt that there was no need to give parents the right to object to examination of their child under this Clause. The main Sub-section brings the Clause into line with Clause 46, in which medical inspection is obligatory, and we think it right that the local authority should have the right to inspect individual children.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin

I beg to move, in page 43, line 27, to leave out from "Where," to the end of line 29, and to insert: after the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil. Sub-section (6) of this Clause provides that where an order has been made by a court, and the child once more becomes infested, then the parent commits an offence. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that even although the matter has not gone to court where a child has had to be cleansed and is once more infested then the parent commits an offence. The distinction between the case where the matter had gone to court and where a child is cleansed by a local authority seems to be entirely arbitrary. In either case the parent is guilty of conduct which has caused the child to be re-infested once he has been cleansed, and it seems that the offence is an equal one in either case and should be treated on equal terms.

Mr. Woodburn

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede

The effect of this Amendment would be to render a parent or a pupil liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 if the pupil, after being cleansed, again became verminous. In the Clause as it stands, this penalty can only be imposed where the cleansing has been done by order of the court. Some local education authorities would like this restriction to be removed, but opinion among them on this point is not unanimous. We desire not to increase the number of cases in which penalties may be imposed. As was pointed out on a former Amendment, Sub-section (7) enables a pupil to be excluded, arid then the parent can be prosecuted under the Clause that relates to school attendance. I hope the House will not insist on this Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to 'examination,' in line 28, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 43, line 28, leave out "examination or."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Silkin

I beg to move, in page 44, line II, at the end, to insert: (9) In the application of this section to the County of London, the expression 'council of a county district' means the common council of the City of London and the council of a metropolitan borough. This is very largely a drafting Amendment and is considered necessary in order to make the provisions of this Bill apply to the London County Council.

Mr. Wilmot

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede

I am in a difficulty; I gathered that this Amendment was consequential on a previous Amendment, to line 10 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), which has been passed over. I do not think there is a reference to a county district in the Clause.

Mr. Silkin

There is a reference in Subsection (3) to a county district.

Mr. Ede

If there is any doubt as to the metropolitan boroughs being included for this purpose in the Clause by the use of the words "county district"—they are alluded to later on as minor local authorities—I will have the Bill corrected in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.