CLAUSE 1.—(Calculation of Amount Payable in Respect of Pauper Lunatics, etc.) (Hansard, 28 November 1916)

§ Sir N. HELME
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "may, if the Council so agree with the guardians of the Poor Law Union or the council of the borough, as the case may be," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
In this Bill the object is to deal with the payment of the Grants for pauper lunatics, which are known as the four-shilling Grants. In this Amendment it is proposed to adopt the arrangement which was come to by the Government in the first Local Government Emergency Provisions Bill, which became law a little time ago. In that Act the London County Council, in Clause 9, had powers given to it which we now seek to obtain generally by this Amendment, As it stands, the Bill proposes that a voluntary agreement may be made between the county councils and the boards of guardians to secure the end that was obtained in favour of the London County Council under the previous Act. The Amendment proposes to make the basis of calculation obligatory, so as to relieve the local authorities of a great amount of unnecessary bookkeeping at the present time. A little while ago a conference was held in Westminster between the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Poor Law Unions, the County Accountants' Society, and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and 274 Accountants, to consider the advisability of extending to the whole country the principle laid down in Clause 9 to which I have alluded. That conference came to the unanimous Resolution: That, in order to save the large amount of clerical labour involved by the present system of calculating the pauper lunatic Grants, it is most desirable that a Bill should be passed without delay extending the provisions of Section 9. Although that resolution was unanimously adopted, the representatives of the Association of Poor Law Unions desired it to be understood that, while they approved the resolution and recommended its adoption, they had no authority to pledge their association to its acceptance. Since then a meeting of the Association of Poor Law Unions has been held, and I have had a letter from the secretary informing me that it was resolved that the association should oppose the Bill in its present form and urge the Government to withdraw the words giving it a permissive character, the association being of opinion that a general consensus of opinion exists in favour of a measure for stereotyping pauper lunatic claims, and payments thereof during the War throughout England and Wales. The Bill proposes that this should only be enforced during the time of the War or within twelve months after, as may be decided by the Local Government Board. I think under these circumstances there can be no doubt that the Government in accepting this Amendment would be yielding to the wish, expressed after careful consideration, of the great rspresentative authorities of this country. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board to be good enough to take into account the very strong and unanimous expression of opinion which I have quoted, and by so doing he would save a great amount of book-keeping in calculating pauper lunatic Grants, and he would render uniform the system, that has been adopted already in legislation.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so in the capacity of President of the Poor Law Unions Association of England and Wales and at their request. The Poor Law Unions Association is a body to which 557 boards of guardians are affiliated. At a meeting in London last Thursday, which was attended by between 400 and 500 guardians, a resolution was passed asking the Government to make this measure compulsory instead of 275 permissive. I promised to put down an Amendment to that effect. The reasons for the Amendment are that having regard to the reduction of the staffs of boards of guardians it would be extremely difficult for those bodies to make the detailed returns necessary to present to the county councils and the borough councils which are requisite in order to secure the Grants, It is felt that while the War lasts these bodies should be spared this unnecessary labour. It is laid down that the Grant may be on the basis of the money received from the council for pauper lunatics for the previous year or the average of the three previous years. I think that is a very fair proposal. If the Government make this compulsory, it would be more satisfactory to have a uniform system throughout the country, and all boards of guardians would be affected accordingly. If it is left permissive a few boards here and there would prefer to go on the old system, but I do think that with the evidence which has been brought before the Government from a body such as the Poor Law Unions Association, representing 557 boards of guardians, it is manifest that the majority desire that this proposal should be made compulsory. I do not think that any injustice will be done. True, in some unions, the cost of pauper lunatics will have increased, but in others it will have been reduced; but I do not think that there is anything to prevent the Government feeling that they are doing absolute justice in accepting this proposal. The Poor Law Unions Association in supporting a stereotyped Grant by no means abrogate their right in normal times to again press upon the Treasury the justice of giving from the Imperial Exchequer a larger sum towards the cost of these poor afflicted people. We know that it is a national responsibility and that the Grant which is handed over from the county councils from the Exchequer contribution Grant is inadequate to meet the present cost of pauper lunatics. For the time being, during these abnormal times, we are content to accept the payments that were given in the previous years or the average of the three previous years, but we shall make it quite plain that in normal times we shall continue to press for a larger Grant from the Imperial Exchequer for these local bodies in connection with their work of caring for these poor people.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)
The special point of difference in this matter is as to whether the arrangement which the Local Government Board proposed shall be made between the various county councils or the county borough councils on the one hand and the various boards of guardians on the other shall be by agreement or shall be mandatory. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and my hon. Friend who seconded it seek to make it mandatory. They quote the example of the Act which we passed last year by which we compelled boards of guardians in the Metropolitan area to come to an arrangement with the London County Council under which, instead of working out all the minute and complex calculations, according to which grants are given by county councils to Poor Law unions in respect of pauper lunatics, they should take a standard year and therefore dispense with all those calculations until the end of the War or the year after the War by which the payments made to the various Poor Law unions shall be standardiised. The difference between the position of the London County Council and that of the various councils in the provinces is that we were able to bring all the chief representatives of the Metropolitan Poor Law unions into conference with the London County Council authorities. At that conference, which was, I think, held in the Local Government Board offices, an agreement was come to so that we were not forcing upon any body anything to which that particular body had not agreed. When the Bill went through the House some of my hon. Friends said, "If this is a good system for London why should it not be a good system for the provinces?" I raid that it might be, but I had had the great advantage of having had an agreement between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Poor Law unions, and I had not heard of any conference or any agreement between the various county councils and the Poor Law unions within the areas of those Poor Law unions. But I said that if such a conference were held and an agreement was come to, such as was come to in the case of London, then I thought there would be a very good reason indeed for an Act of Parliament by which the same economy might be enabled to be practised by the various provincial authorities as was practised in London in reference to pauper lunatics.
277 My hon. Friends have now satisfied me that such a conference has been held, and that it was very representative. At that conference resolutions were come to which I understand met with the support of the County Councils Association, the Borough Councils Association, and, most important perhaps of all, my hon. Friend opposite, who is, I think, himself the president of the Association of Poor Law Unions, assures me—and I am assured also by my hon. Friend behind me—that the great body representing that association is now quite Willing that this should not be a permissive Act, but a mandatory Act, so far as that is concerned. If we Have all that weight of testimony in support of making this mandatory instead of permissive—and I know of no views expressed to the contrary in the House of Commons, and I have received no communication which would indicate that there is any large body of opinion among Poor Law authorities opposed to it—then I think that I should not be justified in opposing the appeal which has been made to me by men who are so reresentative in local matters. Therefore, I shall willingly accept the Amendment which they have proposed to this measure, which is undoubtedly a measure of economy, feeling sure, in view of the position taken up by local authorities all over the country that this measure of economy will be certain of complete adoption; and I cannot help thinking it will be of some value in saving time and money and possibly may help in the solution of the great problem which troubles us all—the distribution of manpower.

§ Sir NORVAL HELME
I beg to propose to leave out the words "or, if so agreed, the average amount payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the three years ending on that date."

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I am willing to accept that Amendment. These words do not appear in the original Act; we thought that possibly it might be a good thing to give an alternative, but I do think that it might lead to more calculation than is desirable.