View report page

11
the young, and so that the able-bodied loafer may be kept under strict discipline,
and not allowed to lose the power to work."
The Royal Commission report then went on to state: "it is mainly with a
view to facilitating this specialisation of treatment that we have recommended the
enlargement of areas" (viz., transfer of guardians' duties to county and county
borough councils).
There had, therefore, been general condemnation of the general mixed workhouses
both from the point of view of administration and of the grant of suitable
remedial assistance for the poor, and one of the objects of the Local Government
Act, 1929, was to enable county and county borough councils so to classify their
various establishments as to provide the best possible service for the patients and
inmates in the most economical form.
So far as London was concerned, the changes brought about by this Act were
of such magnitude that, during the first four years, the new authority had been
very largely occupied with current matters of administration, and, apart from this
fact, it was undesirable that the question of classification should be attempted
until some measure of the problem which had to be dealt with could be taken.
Experience had shown, however, that the time had arrived for the Council to consider
the matter. Questions of staffing, of new works, of alterations and reconditioning
had come up for attention, consideration of which had had to be deferred
pending re-classification, and these matters gave point to the necessity for determining
the future functions of the premises concerned. Further, while inmates
were housed in two sets of institutions under the control of different committees,
it was difficult to ensure equality of treatment. Although the rules made by the
two committees were generally framed on similar lines, the presence of comparatively
small numbers of persons differing in their requirements from the majority
of cases in an institution made the application of the rules a matter of difficulty.
There was also the point that under the prevailing conditions it was impracticable
for the Public Assistance Committee properly to keep under review the cases of
those persons who were receiving institutional relief in public health establishments,
and to this extent there was a risk of lack of uniformity in the administration of
relief in the county. The development of public assistance policy depended upon
the settlement of this problem, and it was evident that, until it was decided how
the various classes of inmate should be dealt with and what should be the future
purpose of a particular institution, or block of buildings, little or no real progress
would be made.
The position was that the institutions allocated to the Public Assistance Committee
contained at the date of transfer a number of public health cases and vice
versa, and that a preliminary survey had been carried out with a view to the
classification of inmates while still under the respective boards of guardians.
Persons who had been classified as infirm in one union fell into the category of
chronic sick in another; in some cases all persons who could attend the dining
hall for meals were designated able-bodied, while in others this category included
only those who were fit for work.
It was necessary, therefore, to determine a uniform basis upon which to work,
and the Council decided that every patient or inmate in the undermentioned
establishments under the management of the Hospitals and Medical Services Committee
and the Public Assistance Committee should be individually placed in one
of the following classes:—
A. Able-bodied.
Persons physically capable of work.
B. Healthy.
Healthy persons who, though not considered capable of continuous
daily work, are able to look after themselves and to attend dining hall,
this class to include healthy aged, healthy deformed, healthy cripples,
healthy feeble-minded, expectant and nursing mothers.