§ Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Minister of Health, if his attention has been called to the fact that certain Metropolitan boards of guardians have given a number of unemployed men resident in workhouses and other institutions under their charge notice to leave, these notices to expire almost immediately; and whether he is aware that at least 90 per cent, of these men form part of the living wall which divided the British people from their enemies during the late War; that their presence in London is entirely due to their desire to lay their grievances before the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; also that all of them are homeless and penniless, and in many cases are very badly clothed and without boots, except such as are badly in need of repair; and whether, in order to avoid the inevitable hardship and suffering and possible disorder which may follow this action of the guardians, the Minister of Health will exercise the authority vested in him by statute and issue an Order instructing the guardians concerned to relieve these men according 1496 to law until such time as their place of settlement is determined and their removal to such place of settlement has either been agreed upon or ordered by a Court of law?
§ Sir M. BARLOW(for the Minister of Health): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries as to the facts. He is informed that the guardians who have given relief to the marchers have ordinarily received them in the workhouse, and have even waived in their favour the restrictions usually imposed on persons so relieved. He is aware of cases in which the guardians have said that they must in future require the observance of the ordinary regulations, and in which the men have then left the workhouse without making any further application. He does not, however, know of any case in which further relief has been asked for or refused to any of these men who are destitute.
As regards the legal position, the duty of relieving the poor is statutorily assigned to the Guardians of the Poor (Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834). That duty is, by Section 15 of the Act, to be carried out subject to the direction and control of the central authority (now the Minister of Health), who, for the purpose of executing his powers, is authorised and required to make Rules, Orders and Regulations. But it is expressly provided, as I stated yesterday, that nothing in the Act shall be construed as enabling the central authority to interfere in any individual case for the purpose of ordering relief. The Minister cannot, therefore, interfere with the discretion of the guardians.
The question of the guardians assisting those men to return to their homes was raised in the course of the supplementary questions put yesterday. My right hon. Friend is advised that the guardians can only remove these men, or contribute to the cost of their removal, if a justice's order has been obtained, or if the guardians of the union in which the men live give their consent.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the question I specifically put to him yesterday and to-day, namely, that certain boards of guardians had given the men notice, and he told me a lot of other thing which do not arise at all?
§ Sir M. BARLOWOf course I am subject to the hon. Member's correction, but I have done my best to answer all the points in the question, and I thought I had done so. What must be clear—and this is a point to which I think the House will attach importance—is that no case is known in which further relief has been asked for or refused to any of these men who are destitute.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the notices of which I complained, and which the Minister has not contradicted, expire tomorrow night in at least two unions and that no question of new applications arises until after the expiration of these notices? The unions are Edmonton and Stepney.
§ Mr. J. JONESDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that the guardians are responsible for the maintenance of these men until their settlement is fixed?
§ Sir M. BARLOWThe guardians have, as I have repeated so often, discretion in the matter, and by Statute that discretion cannot be interfered with by the central authority.
§ Mr. SHORTDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the notices have expired these men could make another application for relief, and is he aware that the boards of guardians who have delivered notices are refusing, and intend to refuse, to accommodate these men or to take them back?
§ Sir M. BARLOWIt is within the discretion of the guardians. If a fresh application is made, the guardians can consider the matter again.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is absolutely no discretion in the boards of guardians? The 43rd of Elizabeth gives every poor person an absolute right. There is no discretion about it. These guardians are exercising a discretion. They have given the men notice. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these guardians have told the men that they are to go out and are not to come in again, and that is the whole point that has not been answered?
§ Lieut. - Commander ASTBURYIf thousands of men under the leadership of misguided men march on London—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is raising a debatable question.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, by the Act, of Settlement, the boards of guardians are absolutely compelled to provide these people with food, and, as a matter of fact, the guardians can pay their fares, home and charge the union they come from?
§ Sir M. BARLOWThere is an obligation the guardians, with certain Sir restrictions, and always has been since' the time of the Act of Elizabeth, but that obligation has to be administered by the guardians themselves. What the hon. Member is always asking me to do is that the Central Authority should takeover the guardians' obligation.
§ Mr. LANSBURY(later): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to continue public assistance to a large-number of unemployed men who are at present chargeable to the Poor Law according to Act of Parliament and the refusal of the Minister of Health to take such action as would prevent the hardship and suffering and possible public disorder which this action of boards of guardians may involve."
§ Mr. SPEAKERSince yesterday I have careully looked into this matter, with the result that I am confirmed in the ruling which I then gave. In fact, the hon. Member's own motion shows it, because he again calls attention to the-action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to continue public assistance. These are local bodies appointed by Statutes of Parliament, and their action within those Statutes has never been held to be a matter which could be raised' under Standing Order No. 10. Their case is just the same as that of municipal authorities who are given certain duties to carry out.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I respectfully point out that, in the last part of my Motion, I call attention to the fact that the Minister of Health is not carrying out 1499 his part of the duty imposed upon him under Statute, namely, to see that these authorities carry out their duty. The Minister of Health has tremendous powers, one of which is to see that the Poor Law is administered, and that is why I want to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member then would be bringing two different points into one Resolution, and it would cease to be definite. I am not, however, taking that point, but only the point that Parliament has delegated certain duties to these bodies, and it is not therefore a matter which can be raised under Standing Order No. 10.