HL Deb 30 June 1899 vol 73 cc1122-8

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 2.

LORD REAY

I desire to ask the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, a question with regard to boarding out, which is dealt with in b of Sub-section 1 of this clause. There is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to the advantages of boarding out, and it will have to be placed under very stringent regulations. I am aware, of course, that the Departmental Committee reported in favour of boarding out, but they suggested so many safeguards that the difficulty will be considerable. In Scotland the boarding out system, as applied to normal children, has been very successful, but it will be found that the number of homes to which defective and epileptic children can be safely sent is very small. I would remind the noble Duke of the evidence which was given before the Local Government Board Departmental Committee of 1896 on the education and maintenance of children by the person who is certainly most competent to express an opinion upon this subject. I refer to Miss Mason, the Local Government Board inspector of boarded-out children. She was asked by the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Mundella: You say you think the feeble-minded child should not be boarded out? Miss Mason's answer was: No. I am sure of it. I shall not propose an Amendment to this clause. All I ask is that the regulations which are to be made shall be of such a nature that there will be every guarantee that these children will be well looked after, and that the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, to the effect that the managers of the special classes are the proper persons to form or appoint the Boarding Out Committee, will be enforced. Sub-section 4 of this clause provides that a school authority may, in respect of children resident in their district and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools. I do not think it is sufficient simply to limit this to residents. I think you should also enact that the school authority to whose district the children properly belong should be made liable for the expenditure. The cases are two-fold. One is the case of a child resident on the fringe of a district where these classes or schools are, but resident in a district where these classes and schools are not; and the other is the case of a child which is taken from its proper home and sent into a district where these classes are provided to reside with other people, thereby throwing the expenditure in respect of that child on the school authority, which is not the authority the Bill recognises to be the proper authority to bear that expenditure. I therefore wish to ask whether, at a future stage, there will be any objection to add words so that the clause would read, "in respect of children resident in, or who properly belong to their district," and whether a clause cannot be introduced after Clause 9 making it quite clear that if, on the one hand, it is simply permissive for a school authority or a board of guardians to make a payment, on the other hand you do not throw the burden of receiving these children on the school authority to which they do not belong. It seems to me obvious that a clause should be inserted protecting the ratepayers of the district which has erected these schools, as against the district which has not done so. The cost of education of a defective child in London is about £8 8s. per annum. The grant from the Government is about £1 7s., so that the burden thrown on the ratepayers comes to about £7 18s. Clearly, it would be very unfair, under these circumstances, that a defective child should become a burden on the ratepayers of a district to which it does not belong, simply because that district happens to meet a want which the other district to which the child belongs has not met.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord, I will make a note of the observations he has made and see what can be done to meet the difficulty. As to the second point, I am prepared to insert in Section 4 of Clause 2 the words, "or properly belonging to." The section will then read: A school authority may, in respect of children resident in, or properly belonging to their district, and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools. I am not quite certain that legal difficulties will not arise as to the interpretation of the words "or properly belonging to," but I am told that the draughtsmen have exercised their ingenuity and cannot find words to better carry out our intention. As to the other point of the noble Lord, I shall be prepared to move the insertion of a clause at the end of the Bill providing that nothing in the Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.

* THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

My Lords, the Bill provides that school authorities may make what arrangements they like for ascertaining whether there are defective children in their district, and, if there are, they may provide for their education in three ways; but there is no provision, so far as I can see, to compel the school authorities to assure themselves, by means of expert medical advice and guidance, as to whether the children admitted into these institutions under the Bill are really of the class defined in the Bill. I do not think it is reasonable to leave the settlement of so grave a question as this to the School Board authorities themselves. Those who have had a lifelong experience in the care and maintenance of idiots and imbeciles find it a very difficult task to draw a dividing line between defective children and imbeciles. The effect of this Bill, unless it is provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution without a medial certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or an imbecile, will be to create institutions for the care, maintenance, and education of a higher grade of imbeciles called defective children, but not very dissimilar from those who are now being maintained and cared for in imbecile asylums, certified under the name of imbeciles. It must be remembered, moreover, that there will be no annual or periodical inspection by the Lunacy Commissioners, as in the case of asylums for idiots and imbeciles, of the children in the institutions proposed to be set up under this Bill, and this fact makes it all the more important that no child should be admitted into the institutions without a medical certificate to the effect that the child is neither an imbecile nor an idiot. I had thought of moving the rejection of that part of the interpretation clause which alludes to institutions, but it appeared to me that some store might be laid on the creation of these institutions by those who were promoting the Bill, which I gladly acknowledge is likely to prove a very useful and valuable one. Therefore I only propose to move a proviso to Sub-section 1 (c), which in my opinion, is absolutely essential, and imperatively necessary. I do not object to the provisions in the Bill for the boarding out of children in houses situated near the schools to be created under the Bill, and for boarding and lodging defective children in establishments, but what I do object to is the absence of any adequate security that only those children for whom the schools are provided shall be admitted. I also regret the absence of any provision enabling those children to be excluded who have been wrongfully admitted. I therefore hope the noble Duke in charge of the Bill will be able to allow the proviso which I now beg to move to be inserted in the Bill.

Amendment moved— In Sub-section 1 (c), page 2, line 11, after 'children' to insert 'Provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution under this Act without a medical certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or imbecile. Such certificate shall be renewed yearly during the residence of the child in such institution."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)

* EARL EGERTON

My Lords, I should like to point out that there is no provision in the Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that school authorities should be required to appoint a medical officer to advise them in the discrimination of these children. The Amendment of the noble Marquess, however, bears upon this matter. The School Board for London have appointed a medical officer—Dr. Shuttleworth, I believe—to advise them, and I hope that, even if provision is not made in the Bill, the Education Department will see that the school authorities appoint medical officers to advise them, not only as to the selection of these children, and the discrimination between them and imbeciles, but also to inspect the homes to which children may be sent.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has suggested the real answer to this Amendment. These are matters which, in our opinion, are better left to the Education Department than provided for in the Bill. We believe that the Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, under Section 1 (a) of Clause 1, which has already been passed, the object of the noble Marquess is sufficiently provided for. The arrangements under that section are to be made with the approval of the Education Department, and in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee. The Education Department would insist, in the first place, that no child should be admitted to any class or school or any institution who did not satisfy Section 1 (a) of Clause 1; secondly, that the name of the medical man certifying should be submitted to them so that they could assure themselves that he was a man conversant with such cases; and, thirdly, the Education Department reserve to themselves the final decision as to whether the case is suitable or not. These arrangements would, in our opinion, meet the case far better than the Amendment, which only touches a small part of the subject. If these matters are to be regulated by Act of Parliament the Amendment ought to be very considerably extended. I hope, however, that what I have said as to the intention of the Education Department to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will satisfy the noble Lords who have spoken that the objects they have in view will really be attained.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 22, alter the words 'resident in' to insert 'or property belonging to.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I should be glad if some noble and learned Lord would inform the House what "properly belonging to" means. I am not aware of any definition which determines who belongs to a district or a parish except the definition in the Poor Law. It is there provided that every person who is born in a particular place belongs by settlement to that particular place, subject, however, to this very large alteration—namely, that anyone who has resided for one continuous year in any place cannot be considered as belonging to the place of his original settlement, although he will revert to it if he leaves the place in which he has resided for a year. It seems to me that unless a precise definition is provided in this Bill you will get into all kinds of difficulties, and have very interesting law suits between the various parishes as to which parish should maintain these children. There is nothing which delights some people more than litigation of this sort, which is most unprofitable and unsatisfactory, and the cost of which falls on the ratepayers of both parishes. I hope the Bill will go to a Standing Committee, where it may be possible to insert smile precise definition.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I stated, in the few remarks I made in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), that I was not absolutely satisfied that the words might not give rise to some difficulty. The case we have in view is that in which children are sent from their homes to reside with a relative in a parish where a suitable school or class is provided. It is only reasonable and just that if a child is sent for that purpose into a parish to which it does not belong, the parish to which it properly belongs should pay for it.

On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 9, amended, and agreed to.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I now beg to move, in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), the insertion of a new clause after Clause 9.

Amendment moved— At end of Clause 9 to insert, as a new clause: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who (a) is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or (b) is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse, or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)

On Question, "That this clause be here inserted," agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments; Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)