INEDUCABLE CHILDREN (Hansard, 4 July 1951)

§ Mr. Redmayne (Rushcliffe)

I have been accused of choosing an unduly long and unwieldy subject for debate, the care of ineducable and educationally subnormal children. I would have preferred to discuss it under its general title of the care of backward children, but that would have entailed the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Education to cover the educationally subnormal, of the Ministry of Health to cover the ineducable, and of the Home Office to cover delinquents of either class. It was quite clear that I should have to choose one of the other because of the short time available.

2449 Therefore, since the delinquent class was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) on 2nd May, and since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education on that occasion made a favourable reply in regard to educationally subnormal children, I have chosen to discuss the problem of ineducable children. I am grateful for the attendance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and for his ready acceptance of a rather long list of questions I have sent him. However, although I am forced to deal with this one class of backward children. I do not accept that the division of backward children into watertight compartments is necessarily either administratively sound or in the best interests of the children concerned.

I am no expert on this subject. My interest in it has arisen from one case. It so happens that the father in this case was a great fighter and has made himself a champion of the cause of the backward child. It is at his request that I am trying to make public certain views on this matter. It is a request which no hon. Member could refuse if it were put to him.

The first thing I should do is to discuss how a backward child comes to be classified as ineducable. Normally the first step, assuming that the child has got to school and is intelligent to that extent, is that, probably on the report of the head teacher, the child is examined by the school medical officer and undergoes as part of that examination an intelligence test. It is true to say that as a result of that test and of the examination at that moment the child is classified either as educationally subnormal, thereby remaining the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, or is classified as ineducable and becomes the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in his opinion this drastic division at one point of time really does justice to the borderline case between the two. I also ask whether he is satisfied that at the present moment a factor in fixing the dividing line between the two classes is not possibly a shortage of facilities available to the Minister for dealing with the educationally subnormal child. That would be a perfectly understandable weak- 2450 ness of a dual system, and it seems to me —and it is put to me—that there is some tendency to ease the burden on the expenses of the Ministry of Education by casting them on to the Ministry of Health. I should like to know whether there is any foundation in that suggestion.

As we are informed, there are some 17,000 educationally subnormal children in special schools and some 11,500 await admission, this at least gives some point to the suggestion that the Ministry of Education already have sufficient worries and would be ready enough to pass some of that responsibility to the Ministry of Health, and in fact do so pass it by the standard on which these children are judged.

I pass now to the ineducable child. Assuming that the parent has no objection to the child being declared ineducable, and does not state any objection within 14 days, that child becomes the responsibility of the local health authority and from then on either can be cared for at home, in so far as that is possible, or can go to a daily occupation centre, in so far as it has been possible to provide those centres; or the child can be allocated a vacancy for residential institutional treatment by the regional hospital board, or, lastly, a few cases can be treated in private homes.

I shall not say much about training at home. Quite obviously, that depends upon the social conditions in the home and on the ability of the parents to accept the very heavy responsibilities of guiding the training of the child. Neither shall I say much about occupation centres. I hope we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what is being done and what, possibly, can be done. But as regards vacancies in institutions and hospitals, I would make three points.

The first point, which in my ignorance I make in all humility, is that it is put to me that the decision as to whether a child should receive hospital or institutional treatment is based largely on the social and economic conditions in the child's home, and not so much on the question of whether that ineducable child will or will not benefit from specialised treatment in an institution. I realise how very difficult that problem is, and I put the point with some inward doubt, but I put it because I am asked to do so, as to whether there is any prejudice in 2451 favour of the social conditions rather than the condition of the child and whether that is regarded as a desirable point.

As far as hospital vacancies are concerned, the local health authority has lost the power to allocate vacancies to institutions. It is perfectly true that regional hospital boards in the different regions have very varying facilities and very wide responsibilities. The Sheffield Board, for example, has, I think, 17 local authorities to which it is responsible. Would it not be better that there should be some national assessment of what is required in the matter of hospital and institutional vacancies, and should not local health authorities have some direct allocation made to them or some direct power of allocation in their hands to allot vacancies to those cases which they consider to be most urgent?

It is true to say—in my own county this is somewhat of a sore point—that in the past many local health authorities were progressive in providing accommodation and now find themselves deprived of any particular privilege in regard to their past progress and initiative; whereas those who in the old days were less progressive are now getting very much the better end of the stick. Regional hospital boards are dealing with things—with buildings, staff, administration, money and so forth —whereas the local health authority is dealing with persons.