HC Deb 21 July 1920 vol 186 cc2058-73
Miss WILKINSON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, after the word "payable," to insert the words or where such person is incapacitated and resident in any institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment for a period exceeding three months. I raised this point on the Schedule during the Debate on the Second Reading, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to point out that, if we wanted to get this point in, it would have to come at a later stage of the Bill. After going through the Bill very carefully, it seems to me that, if we could insert these words in Clause 6, it would meet the point that I raised on the Schedule in the previous Debate. May I very briefly remind the Minister of what the position is? If we accept the position as laid down in the Schedule to the Bill, it means that, where a widow is taken into a Poor Law infirmary if she is an inmate there for more than three months, her pension ceases to be payable to her. There are a good many places in this country where the Poor Law infirmary is the place to which women of the working class naturally go. It does not imply to them any stigma of pauperism, but they cannot afford to pay nursing home fees, and the voluntary Hospitals are overcrowded or not available. The number of these cases would probably not be very large, but we are dealing here with women whose lives have been very hard. A woman might go into such an institution for a very serious surgical operation or complicated medical treatment and it might be quite impossible for her to be discharged within three months. The operation of treatment may involve her remaining there for four or five, or even six months. Those of us who are dealing with working women know that one of the great terrors of a woman who is taken away from Her home, whether for confinement or for treatment, is what is happening to the children who are left behind. That applies even When the husband is there, and it certainly applies still more in the case of a widow, who is already receiving so very little to keep her home together; and we know it is so often the case that this worry as to what is going on at home is one of the most potent factors in preventing her from getting well.

Everyone dealing with working women knows that the elimination of worry is one of the main factors in getting them back to health and strength. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the state of mind of such a woman when the three months are drawing to an end, and she knows that the pension which has been paid to her, and which she is probably paying to someone else for looking after her children, will no longer be paid. She will begin immediately to wonder what is happening to her children. I know it is very difficult to get concessions at this stage of a Bill, but I do not think this will involve very much financially, and I have tried to be extremely moderate, and, therefore, am not asking that the whole 10s. shall be paid to the woman after she has been three months in hospital, but that after the three months, if the Minister cannot go on paying the full 10s.—and I realise that there are certain drawbacks—those children should be put on the same footing as orphans. We all recognise the reason why the extra money is given to the orphan, so that someone may be paid to do the work which the mother naturally does from love of her children. If the right hon. Gentleman could give this small concession, while it might not affect a very large number of people, it would mean a very great deal to women in these unfortunate circumstances. They would feel that someone was being paid to look after the children, and, if the Minister could see his way to grant that, I am sure the whole House would be extremely grateful to him.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to second the Amendment.

The point is a very simple one, and is, in fact, so obvious that I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not in fact already covered by the Bill. A woman goes into the infirmary, and, according to the Bill, after three months she loses her pension, but, as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has pointed out, her children still have to live, and those who look after the children still have to be paid. The Amendment, therefore, proposes that the allowance should still be paid on behalf of the children. That seems to me to be so obvious that I am not really quite sure whether it is not covered by the Bill. There are some words in Sub-section (2) of Clause 21 which seem to me to refer to this point, but I should like to be assured on the subject. If it is not covered by the Bill, I hope the Minister will not make the defence that is included in the Memorandum that he sent round explaining the Bill. That Memorandum states that this provision is in line with that contained in the Old Age Pensions Act, but this Bill has no analogy with the Old Age Pensions Act. It is an Insurance Bill, and the analogy of this Bill is with the National Health Insurance Act, with which, indeed, the Minister says it is interlocked. He will, of course, know that under the National Health Insurance Act, if a man goes into a hospital or a Poor Law institution, his benefits are paid to his wife or children or any dependant relatives he may have. That is the principle that ought to be followed here, and, modified and very much moderated, it is the principle which the Mover of this Amendment suggests should be adopted.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) in discussing the general principles which govern the provisions in the Schedule. I think my task is rather to confine myself to the Amendment which has been moved. May I say that, without having myself searched through the Bill to see what would be the proper place at which to insert this Amendment, I think I can confidently say that it ought not to be in the place where it is. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 we are dealing with cases where by order of any Court a child has been removed from the custody of the person to whom the allowance is or will be payable, and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) will, no doubt, remember that, when we were discussing this matter in Committee, I made a concession on this particular Sub-section. I thought, however, that I saw a distinction between cases where separation occurred by order of the Court and cases where the mother herself had abandoned or ceased to support the child, and I said to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment on that occasion that I would accept it on condition that he did not move his later Amendment dealing with voluntary abandonment. The case dealt with in this present Amendment is not one where there is any separation by order of the Court; it is the case where the mother has entered an institution for the purpose of receiving medical or surgical attendance. I also want to point out that, although the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough has only talked about Poor Law infirmaries, that is not what the Amendment says. It says "any institution," and you might very well, therefore, have the case of a woman going into a voluntary hospital and receiving her pension, not merely for three months, but for the whole time she is in the hospital, although she would no longer have to support herself, but would be supported at the expense of the hospital. She would be receiving her pension, and there could not be any possible justification in that case for giving an increased allowance in respect of the children.

Then comes the small number of cases that are left over, which would be confined to cases of women who have entered Poor Law infirmaries, and the hon. Member says that we ought to try to remove worry from the minds of these mothers by providing that when the pension ceases, that is to say when the woman has been in the institution for more than three months, the children's allowances should be paid on the larger scale given to orphans. I might, perhaps, remind the hon. Member, first of all, that these women are in a much better position than would have been the case before this Bill. After all, they are receiving their pen- sions themselves for three months while they are in the infirmary, and their children's allowances in any case. Has the hon. Member considered that during the first three months such a woman has not had to support herself, but has been supported in the infirmary? The pension of 10s. which is still being paid might, therefore, I think, very well be considered as some contribution towards the cost of maintaining the children after the period of three months, should she be so unfortunate as to have to remain in the infirmary for more than that time. Finally, I would also remark that it would make matters very difficult administratively to have this dodging in and out of different scales of benefit for the children. First of all, there would be the children's allowances of 5s. for the first and 3s. each for the others. Then, after a period of three months, that is to be changed to 7s. 6d. for each child, and, when the woman comes out of the institution, it has got to be changed back again. It seems to me that the administration difficulty of ascertaining exactly when these changes are due, and making the necessary alterations in the scale of allowances, even apart from the question of equity, would make the Amendment an exceedingly difficult one to accept. While I put that forward, however, I rely rather upon what I call the equity of the case, and it does not seem to me that a sufficient case has been made out for an alteration in the amount granted in the exceptional circumstances referred to.

Miss WILKINSON

May I just ask a question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not want to prevent the hon. Member from asking a question, but I would point out that we are on the Report stage now, and only one speech is allowed.

Mr. HARNEY

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really directed the attention of the House to the real point that is involved here. This is an additional payment to the child who is deprived of the benefit of a parent. The position is that, if an order of the Court separates the mother from the child, then the child, to all intents and purposes, is in the position of an orphan, and so receives an orphan's allowance. For my part, I do not see any difference in principle between a parent being withdrawn from a child, and thereby leaving it a virtual orphan, by an order of the Court, and a parent being withdrawn from a child by an order of God through sickness. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why such a provision should not be made as this: "We, by this Bill, give an orphan something more than we give a child that is living with its parents. Show me the case of a child that answers to all the attributes of an orphan, whether its parents be dead or alive, and I will give the increased allowance." I think that that ought to be the principle. Whether it can be embodied in this form or not I am rather doubtful, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think whether it might not be possible to deal with it at a later stage.

Mr. LANSBURY

I should like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this more consideration. I think he has forgotten that when the mother of children is in an institution, whether the institution takes part of the 10s. a week or whether it still remains in her hands as it were, there is still the rent to pay, and there is still someone to take care of the children. I speak about this not theoretically, but practically. It is a real difficulty when the mother, especially a widow, is taken away from her children into an infirmary or institution. The fact that she has had 10s. for three months is no argument at all for saying that at the end of the three months the orphan's pension should not be increased to 7s. 6d. when the 10s. is going to stop. There is all the more reason for doing it. As to the difficulty, that all arises because this is a contributory insurance Measure. But even so, I think the Ministry of Pensions has no end of this sort of cases to deal with, and really more difficult cases, and is able to deal with them quite efficiently and well. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last agrees with the Minister that this is not the right place. Perhaps the Minister will consult with the people concerned and, when we reach the right place, see whether he can do it in the right manner. I hope he will not dismiss it, especially on the ground that the woman has had 10s. for three months. I want to stress the point that she probably needs that 10s. more when she is in an institution than when she is outside.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I quite appreciate the point that the woman going into an institution has one change, on the three months expiry she has another change, and coming out of the institution has a third change, but that would be so in any case, because when she goes into the institution the child allowance will be paid to someone else. At the end of the three months the Minister proposes to stop the widow's allowance, and on her coming out of the institution he restarts it and again begins to pay the children's allowance to her. Therefore, this proposal does not make a fresh set of changes. It only alters the nature of the changes which are already being made, so that the administrative difficulty is less than the Minister suggests.

Captain BENN

I do not see that there is any essential illogicality in putting the Amendment in here. It is true that the provision of the orphan's allowance in place of the smaller sum is originally only intended to happen when an order of the Court is being made. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) proposes that it should be given when another circumstance arises, namely, when the woman is in hospital for more than three months, and therefore, although there may be a better place to put it, I do not think essentially it throws Clause 6 out of gear. Of course we are working under great difficulties, because we have no further opportunity on this side, once the Clause is passed, to do any more. The most we can hope for is that the Minister will do it in another place. I hope he will consider the Amendment. Many people who go into a hospital are asked to contribute to it, and it is likely, knowing that she is in receipt of a pension, that the authorities of the hospital may ask her for something, and she may feel bound to give something, and with the additional expense at home and the standing charges of rent, plus perhaps a charge for some woman to look after her children, it is an occasion when a. little latitude should be granted. I should like the. Minister to say what this would cost. If it is a costly Amendment, that may be a sufficient answer to many Members, but is it a matter of a few thousands, or a few tens of thousands, or is it one of those Amendments which would shatter the finance of the Bill?

Amendment negatived.

Captain BENN

I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, after the word "Where," to insert the words after giving to the widow or other person to whom the additional allowance is payable, an opportunity of being heard. We are dealing now with Sub-section (2), which causes the mother to be deprived of the allowance for her child in cases where representations are made to the Minister that she is not a fit person to discharge the obligation. These Amendments are intended to improve the position of the woman, and give her a better opportunity of stating her case. As the Clause stands, the position is as follows: First of all, the representation has to be made to the Minister by the local authority or otherwise. I do not quite understand what is meant by "or otherwise." This was very fully discussed in the Committee, and some difficulty was found by some Members in understanding what was meant by "representation may be made by a local authority," and how it was to be done. But we will pass that by as having some meaning, and come to the words "or otherwise." They mean, I presume, any sort of communication to the Minister. It is obvious that they might mean an anonymous letter or" any sort of possibly malicious information laid against the woman. The proposal of the Minister is that such a representation shall come to his Department, and he shall give her an opportunity of being heard, if the local authority or otherwise is to be given an opportunity of making a representation. The purpose of my two Amendments is, first of all, to see that the moment these charges are laid against her she has an opportunity of answering them. For that purpose, we put in words to say that before the representation is made, the local authority must give the woman whose character is being attacked an opportunity of stating her ease to them. Then the consequential Amendment leaves out the words which were intended to cover the case where the local authority had not heard the woman, because under the first Amendment they will be compelled to hear her, and it provides that in every case she shall have an appeal to the Minister if she is being deprived of the allowance. There is no money involved in it at all, and I think it is an Amendment which will commend itself to Members in all parts of the House. It merely seeks to secure to the woman who is about to lose her rights under the Bill, to which she has contributed, a hearing before, on some evidence, she is deprived of those rights. I think that is a fair statement of the case. The Minister has gone a certain distance to meet the difficulty, but I think these Amendments make the scheme a little more strict and would assist the woman, or, at any rate, provide that no serious injustice was done.

Mr. FENBY

I beg to second the Amendment in order to clear up the way in which these representations ought to be made to the Minister. There is nothing more easy in administration than for someone to lay a complaint against a particular person, which complaint may deprive him of some benefit, but there is every difficulty sometimes in getting that person to substantiate the complaint, and if the local authority, or any other person, was obliged to give a person against whom he lays an information an opportunity of being heard, I think we should do away with a good many complaints, and at any rate, the complaints that were made would be based on solid facts, an opportunity being given for the facts to be examined and proved.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The two Amendments the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to do not seem to me to read at all. The first does not read and the second is wrongly drafted, and should refer to other words, not from "where" but from "that," I think I understand what ho intended, and I have tried to understand what it is that he is afraid of, and what he thinks he is prevented by the Amendment. Assuming that any imperfections in drafting were put right, it appears to me the result would be that you would have a double hearing.

Captain BENN

The intention is that this information should not be sent up to the right hon. Gentleman's Department until the woman has had an opportunity there of facing those who are accusing her.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That is not exactly what I am dealing with. If the intention of the Amendments were carried out, the effect would be that there would have to be in every case, first a hearing of the woman locally, and second a hearing by the Minister or some person appointed by him. Is that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants?

Captain BENN

The first intention is that, before anyone can lay an information to deprive the woman of her right, she shall be heard. The second is that, before the Minister can decide to take away her rights, he should give her a hearing.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Let us see what this really means. We are dealing with a case where the widow has deserted, or abandoned, or ceased to support her child, or become disqualified for the time being for receiving her widow's pension, and a representation has been made to the Minister in order that the pension should be taken away, but that the additional allowance payable in respect of the child should, in the interest of the child, be payable to some other person than the mother.

Captain BENN

Those are allegations.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That is the representation that is being made to the Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to prevent any such information or representation being made to the Minister until the woman has had an opportunity of being heard and stating her side of the case. I think that is going a great deal too far. Action does not follow immediately upon the laying of the representation, and I think it would be altogether wrong to say the Minister must not receive any information until the woman has had an opportunity of being heard. The information may come from a local authority, or from some other person. It may be from some irresponsible person, but it may not, I do not think you should try to debar that person from giving this information, which, after all, is only being given in the interest, not of the individual who is making the representation, but of the child. We provide that when that happens, the woman must be given an opportunity, before any action is taken by the Minister, of personally putting her side of the case after hearing what the charge is. We have given that already. We have said, first of all, that it should be given by the local authority. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says the information may not be given by the local authority. It may be given by someone else. But that does not prevent the local authority from taking the case up. The Minister has power under the Bill, when he gets information of this sort, to refer it to the local authority and ask them to investigate and report, and that is the course he naturally would take. If he does that. the local authority would, no doubt, give the woman a chance of being personally heard. In order that there may be no possible mistake about the woman having every chance, we have provided that if she has not had such opportunity before an information is sent to the Minister, and before he decides on his action, he shall give her such an opportunity. Seeing the nature of the allegations with which we are dealing, and the purpose for which representations are to be made, namely, in the interests of the child, we have provided ample safeguards in this Clause to see that the woman is not unfairly or unjustly treated. I cannot see any object in duplicating the hearing and in insisting that not only is she to be heard by the local authority but by the person appointed by the Minister. I hope that after that explanation the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I think there is more in this Amendment than appears on the surface. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso, he will see that in giving the right to the woman to be heard before the Minister, the proviso already contemplates the possibility of the woman being heard by the local authority. The governing words are Provided that where the widow or other person to whom the additional allowance or orphan's pension is payable has not had an opportunity of presenting her case personally, or through some person appointed by her, to the local authority. Therefore, it is assumed that she will have had an opportunity of presenting her case to the local authority or some person appointed by the local authority. It is only in a case where, through some defect, that has not happened that it is provided that the Minister shall, before giving directions, give her an opportunity of being heard. As I understand it, what the Clause says is this: normally, the woman will have had an opportunity of presenting her case personally to the local authority or some person appointed by the local authority. If by some mischance that right is not given to her, then she shall have the right of Appeal to the Minister. As I understand the Amendment, it amounts to this, that in any event, whether she has a right to appeal to the Minister or not, she shall be heard before the local authority in the first instance. That does not seem to me an unreasonable provision.

This whole Clause may be necessary, but it is highly undesirable, in the sense that it is providing an opportunity for local authorities and other persons— reputable and important persons they may be, referred to as "otherwise" in the Clause—to make representations about the character of individuals. It is only fair that before a person who is alleged to have abandoned her child or ceased to support it is put to the trouble of appearing before the Minister because of a report presented by the local authority or by some person described as "otherwise," the whole case shall have been thrashed out by the local authority. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman docs not welcome a provision which would deprive him of the invidious task of going through all these cases. As the proviso stands, it is only the cases where the local authority have not gone into them that are affected. If the local authority have always to hear the case, the central authority, the Minister, will be relieved of an invidious task as it is an undesirable thing that people should be encouraged to make evil reports about their neighbours, you cannot have this thing done too openly. One hon. Member pointed out that we have succeeded in getting removed from the Bill one Clause of a very similar nature, and he said that we have to realise that, human nature being what it is, people will begin to gossip about one another, and someone will run, along and say "Mrs. So-and-So has deserted her child." Someone else will say, "Mrs. So-and-So has not been treating her child properly, because it has not had a pair of clean socks for a week." You will have that sort of gossip, which you do not want to encourage. If these people know that they have to give the woman a chance of facing them before the local authority, the trouble would be obviated.

We appreciate what the Government have done. I agree that the Bill is better now than it was originally, and certainly very much better because of the disappearance of the other objectionable feature to which I have referred. It is only a further precaution to ask that the woman shall have an opportunity of exercising her statutory right to be heard by the local authority. What is the meaning of the word "otherwise" in Subsection (2): Where a representation is made to the Minister by the local authority or otherwise. Does the word "otherwise" mean representation by some other local authority? It may mean representation by something which is not quite a local authority and not quite a person. Does it mean a charity organisation society? Does it mean a member of the Independent Labour party? I am struggling against the impression that it can mean that any person, however irresponsible, can come in and report a piece of gossip. I like to think well of the Government, and I cannot believe that any Government could really mean that any tittle-tattler, any ill-informed person, any malicious person, could come forward and say that "Mrs. So-and-so has neglected her child." It must mean something. What does it mean? What is that which is otherwise than a local authority and yet sufficiently like a local authority to be given the same power? I cannot think that it means a person.

Mr. SPENCER

I would rather the proviso remained as it is than that the Amendment should be put in. The proviso stipulates that a local authority may make representations to the Minister with a view to getting a woman's pension stopped, or the pension in respect of the child stopped because she is not looking after the child. The local authority may, if they like, give the woman an opportunity of appearing before them. If they fail to do so she has the right to appeal to the Minister to be heard before anything further can be done. Let us assume that the local authority make representations to the Minister, and we insert this Amendment. It would mean that that same local authority will have to hear the woman; that those who are making the representations will also be the judges. It is contrary to every canon of English law that those who are the accusers shall be the judges at the same time. If the local authority make any representation to the Minister, the woman would have a very poor chance of passing their judgment if she appeared before them. For that reason, if a representation is made by a local authority the further proceedings should be removed from all local prejudice and possible misrepresentations, and should take place before some person who has a clear and fresh mind, free from the tittle-tattle of the district. In the interests of the insured person, I should prefer that the proviso remain as it is than to insert the Amendment.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR

Whatever we are discussing we are not discussing what the late Solicitor-General said we are discussing. The Amendment as it stands provides two things: that where a representation is made to the Minister that representation may only he made when the widow or other person to whom the additional amount is payable has had an opportunity of being heard; and that the Minister is not to allow any representation to be made to him until after he has heard the person concerning whom he previously has had no representation at all. Therefore, the Amendment would make nonsense of the proviso. Apart from that, I should support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer). This Amendment would afford another type of inquisition besides the type of inquisition provided in the later part of the Clause. In so far as inquisition is necessary in matters of this kind, it must be obvious that such inquisition ought to be by a person as far as possible removed from immediate contact with the person in regard to whom the inquiry is being made.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

The last two speeches have assisted me. I can assure the Committee that the person accused is adequately safeguarded. No step can be taken against her unless she does have an opportunity of a hearing of her case. I recognise the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment that no undue hardship should be imposed. By his Amendment he is imposing two hearings, and I do not think that is necessary. According to his Amendment, the hearing in one case is to take place by the people who are making the representation. That is an objectionable feature in his proposal. It is far better in the interests of the widow that the ordinary method of appeal which is provided for should be given. According to the proviso in the event outlined the Minister is to give the widow or such other person appointed by her an opportunity of so presenting her case to a person appointed by him.

Captain BENN

Will the hon. Member say what is the meaning of the words in the proviso except in such cases as may be prescribed?

6.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD

I think the Minister of Health gave an explanation of those words on the last occasion. As far as I recollect, they are meant to deal with cases where a conviction has been recorded, or matters of that kind. I would much sooner go myself before independent referees than have my case tried in the manner suggested. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke lust. Therefore, on that ground I suggest to the Committee that the widow is amply protected here. With reference to the remarks of the late Solicitor-General as to the words "or otherwise." That is a very wide term. It means that anyone who desires may come forward and make a statement, and I think that that is quite proper. Say, for instance, that one of the inspectors under this Act knew that a woman had deserted or abandoned or failed to support the child, surely it is quite proper that representations should be made to that effect by anybody. I do not see that there is any hardship involved. If the hon. Gentleman, for instance, knew of a case, which he had verified, in which a woman had deserted the child, I do not see why he should not be at liberty to make representations to the Minister. There cannot be any possible hardship, because whatever statement is made has to be subject to investigation, and if the widow herself desires it has to be the subject of an appeal before an independent tribunal. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 3, leave out from the word "pension" to the word "and," in line 5.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the words, "in such cases as may be prescribed," and to insert instead thereof the words where the widow or other person cannot be found, or is in prison, or in an asylum or similar institution. The Committee may remember that objection was taken to the words "in such cases as may be prescribed" and it was suggested that a proper description should be inserted stating exactly what was intended to be done, and I am moving this Amendment to give effect to that suggestion.

Captain BENN

I overlooked this Amendment when I criticised those other words. I think that this is very desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38. leave out the word "should", and insert instead thereof the words "is or is about to."—[Sir K. Wood.]