§ Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.I should not like this Bill to be read a second time without a few words from the Government Department responsible for a, measure of this kind. Although the Bill passed its Second Reading by a very large majority on a previous occasion, it unfortunately met with an untoward fate elsewhere. The Bill has been very much criticised both in the Press and in other places, and the allegation has been made that when it passed its Second Reading in this House last year that result was obtained without the matter having been sufficiently considered by the Government. I state most emphatically that there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. In the first place the Bill has been most carefully considered by my Department, which is responsible for the Poor Law administration of the country; it has been carefully examined by experts and men of great experience in the administration of the Poor Law, and I have most carefully considered it myself. In addition to that the Bill was most carefully considered by the Cabinet as a whole, and it was decided that it was worthy of the support of this House and one which we sincerely hope to see accepted and placed on the Statute Book. I know that the Bill has met with the opposition of the Charity Organisation Society and its secretary, Mr. Loch. Everybody who is familiar either with former Poor Law administration, or with charitable administration generally, must be convinced of the admirable work done by Mr. Loch and his society; and if only people would consult what is the best way of dealing with unhappy cases of destitution brought to their notice, I say it would be far better to keep their 1013 money in their pockets or give it to the Charity Organisation Society than to pay it out in casual relief. It is impossible to over estimate the good work done by the Charity Organisation Society and its able secretary, but notwithstanding that fact I cannot agree with them that a Bill of this kind would tend to weaken the administration of the Poor Law, or would bring us back, as some have alleged, to the condition of things revealed in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1834.
Nobody desires to do anything, either by legislation or anything else, to bring us back to the condition of things which prevailed before the Poor Law Act was passed. On the contrary it is because I am convinced that a Bill of this kind would not only not weaken, but would rather strengthen, the administration of the Poor Law, that I ask the House to read it a second time. It is said that this Bill would not do any good, for under the existing law Boards of Guardians have a discretion to consider the amount received from other sources by applicants for relief. I am, as a rule, strongly in favour of maintaining the independence and the position of local authorities, and of reserving to them their discretion. But this is not a case in which the discretion of the Board of Guardians meets the difficulty; and for two reasons. In the first place, what the members of the friendly societies ask for, and are entitled to, is that they should be given this privilege as a right, and that it shall not be dependent on the discretion of any Board of Guardians; and in the second place, a very unfortunate result follows from the different action of different Boards of Guardians. It may be that there are two men living on the confines of different Unions. In the one Union special consideration is shown to the case of one of the men in his application for relief, while in the adjoining Union the applicant is put on a level with the other paupers. Can hon. Members wonder that in the latter case the man has a feeling of degradation and asks the question: "What was the good of my joining a friendly society"? in the wise administration of the Poor Law, which has been the practice now for sixty years, we desire to do two things. In the first place, 1014 to separate the wastrel from the unfortunate; and, in the second place—and this is by far the most important of the two—to strive to teach the people lessons which will lead them to be self-supporting in the future and not to need the assistance of the Poor Law. We have done a great deal in recent years in regard to the first. In the large Unions very different accommodation has been provided for the honest, suffering poor; and I am happy to say the treatment of the wastrel, while not inhuman or unchristian, is much more severe and better regulated than it used to be. I hope that that will always be the case. But it is in the promotion of thrift, of self-help amongst the people, that we are likely to find the best remedy for pauperism in the future.
I am sure that tin's Bill will have the effect of teaching the people that it is worth their while to join Friendly Societies, and to make an effort in the days of their strength and prosperity to be independent of the Poor Law when the day of sickness comes. I have been anxious not to occupy unduly the time of the House, for I believe that this Bill meets with general acceptance. I think that idle and baseless allegations have been made against the Bill. I support the Bill with the utmost satisfaction because I believe it is a step in the right direction, and that legislation of this kind will be likely to teach the people to be self-respecting, thrifty, and provident, and so to build up a self-reliant community.
SIR GEORGE BAETLEY (Islington, N.)said he took a somewhat different view from that which had just been stated by the President of the Local Government Board. He did not think that anyone would accuse him of want of sympathy with providence on the part of the people. For a good many years he had brought in a Bill which he called the "Thrift and Out-door Relief Bill." There were two or three very serious matters which, it seemed to him, had been overlooked in the present Bill. For example, it gave prominence to one special form of thrift—that was to say, it compelled men, if they were to get a special benefit from their thrift, to enter a Friendly Society. But there were other forms of thrift that ought to be en- 1015 couraged, such as the Post Office annuities, and it was sometimes inconvenient to join a special form of Friendly Society. No doubt the Friendly Societies were doing an immensely good work, but, at the same time, it was well known that many of them were not in a sound condition, although many of them were alive to the necessity of putting themselves in a secure position. Now, this Bill simply said that a man should belong to a Friendly Society. It did not specify the particular Society, or the time he must have been a member of it. He believed that a general scheme would have been very much better. From the criticisms which had been made on the Bill last year by Mr. Loch in connection with out-door relief, he was afraid that unless it were made something like his own "Thrift and Out-door Relief Bill" not much good would be done. There was no doubt that the great test for out-door relief was destitution, and under the present law it was proved that the more improvident a man had been the better chance he had of getting relief. That was an evil in the past and was working very much to the detriment of the promotion of thrift. Unless a lever were provided for promoting self-help and self-reliance no good would be ultimately done, but a great deal of harm. The great object they ought to have in view, however hard it might prove, was to induce people to make an effort to help themselves. He hesitated to oppose the Bill, but when it came to the Committee stage he would move Amendments which would strengthen the principle of thrift, as he did not think that the Bill went far enough in that direction.
§ COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince)said that some of the pensions given to soldiers were so very small that it was impossible for them to live upon them. He was anxious to see a provision for such cases included in the Bill, because it was a very serious thing for recruiting for the Army when it was understood that a soldier might be put into the workhouse when receiving a small pension.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said he was glad they had received the promise of support from the Government in reference to this Bill. He spoke as a member of a Friendly 1016 Society conversant with the working of such bodies, and he was sure the words which had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board that afternoon would be received with gratitude by all Friendly Societies. He represented a class of people in Lancashire, many of whom received wages under £1 per week, and who, out of that money, endeavoured to put by something for a time of sickness and old age. Under the rules of these associations, after a man had received a certain amount of full pay and of half pay, he was put on quarter pay, which became practically a pension. A small sum was paid to him although he was not ill in the sense of being confined to bed, but was ill enough to be unable to work. That pension or quarter pay amounted to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week, and he thought it was most unfair that the Guardians should take into consideration at all any amount like that. When a man had been provident enough in the past to secure for himself this small amount of money, some assistance in addition, he knew, was a great help. He believed that in many cases this relief was absolutely essential, but it should be made known to the public that there was a difference between a man trying in the best days of his life to prepare for old age and those who did not try. Those two classes of men should not be treated under the Poor Law equally. He desired to thank the President of the Local Government Board for his sympathetic references to Friendly Societies, and to say that the supporters of all such Societies would equally thank him.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.