§ 22. Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether before the 781 making of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, the Department had received from the council of the Women's Local Government Society a communication, dated 4th February, 1924, asking him to omit the oakum picking for women from the new order about to be made; whether the Department had received communications from any, and, if so, what hoards of guardians, vagrancy committees, or other public bodies to the same effect; whether any communications had been received from any, and, if so, what, boards, committees, or bodies such as aforesaid, asking or suggesting that it should be retained or increased; and whether, before making such order, he consulted the medical women or his staff as to whether oakum picking was a suitable task for women who were destitute wayfarers?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Similar communications were received from the Union and Rural District Clerks' Association, the National Association of Masters and Matrons, the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, and the National Council of Women of Great Britain and Ireland. No communications were received of the kind mentioned in the third part of the question, but a draft of the Order was shown to a number of associations, who made no suggestion for the abolition of the task. In the preparation of the Order full consideration was, of course, given to the medical aspects of the matter by my expert advisers, though I cannot say that women medical inspectors were specially consulted.
§ 24. Captain GEEasked the Minister of Health whether he will amend the Casual Pauper (Relief) Order, 1925, No. 291, by declaring that oakum picking and stone-pounding be no longer prescribed or permitted tasks; and will he also withdraw the task of stone-breaking by amount and replace it by six hours' stone-breaking for casuals detained for an entire day and not more than two hours' for those detained for one night only?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI would refer the hon. Member, as regards the first part of his question, to the reply given to a question put by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on Thursday last. With regard to the 782 stone-breaking task, the Order allows the guardians a fairly wide discretion as to the amount of stone to be broken, and further provides specifically that a casual shall be excused from the whole or any part of a task if it shall appear that the task is not suited to his age, strength or capacity. It does not appear to me to be necessary to make any further modification.
§ Captain GEEIs the letter the right hon. Gentleman issued the other day going to be embodied in the present regulations, so that workhouse masters will have some authority behind them for the abolition of oakum picking beyond the promise given in this House?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. I do not think it is necessary to embody it in an Order. Workhouse masters will receive the letter, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not carry it out.
§ Captain GEEThey have not done it yet.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNHow does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between oakum picking and stone-pounding, both of which are degrading in character?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI do not agree that they are degrading in character. I was of opinion that there were certain associations connected with the task of oakum picking which did render it, in the eyes of many people, akin to the tasks imposed upon criminals and felons, and it was for that reason that I abolished it.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that oakum picking was abolished in prisons because it was a degrading task?
§ 35. Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of unions which had power to use stone-pounding at the time when the official survey of 1923–24 was made was about 70 and the number of those which actually used it was about 12; whether departmental sanction to stone-pounding has been given; and, if so, in what unions since the official survey?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, no further applications were received from boards of guardians for the approval of such a task.