HC Deb 25 June 1925 vol 185 cc1729-30
Mr. GROVES

In view of the state of unrest in West Ham, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the refusal of a public loan to the Guardians of the West Ham Union, with the result that the guardians will not be able to discharge their statutory obligations with respect to the relief of the poor, and that more than 60,000 persons will be left destitute."

Mr. SPEAKER

I am sorry that I cannot put that Motion to the House under Standing Order No. 10. It does not comply with the provisions of the Standing Order.

Mr. BUCHANAN

In view of the fact that on Tuesday next, if this loan is not forthcoming, this local board will not be able to perform their functions, and that if these people are not paid relief a great state of unrest is likely to arise in South-West Ham, is it not a matter of urgent public importance for this House to discuss it, seeing that it is on Tuesday next that the situation will arise?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have to look at these questions with regard to the whole field, and in my opinion there is in this instance no case such as would come under Standing Order No. 10. The House heard the answer of the Minister—that certain proposals have been made and negotiations are going on, and, in any case, discretionary power is given to the Minister in the matter of these loans.

Mr. BARNES

May I point out that in this case the financial weapon which the Government hold over a body like a board of guardians is being used? The guardians have done nothing illegal so far in adopting their present scale of relief. The trouble with West Ham arises purely from the fact that there is abnormal unemployment. The rates are exceedingly high, and it is impossible for the guardians to raise any more through the means of the rates. If the guardians suspend operations, I wish you to consider the position that we shall be in, with 60,000 people unemployed and receiving no relief.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD

Before you give your answer to that point of order, Sir, may I submit two points to you? First of all, that it is necessary for the House to express its view upon the way in which the Minister proposes to use his discretion. If he uses it in such a way on Monday as will create trouble on Tuesday—whether he has used it rightly from his own point of view, or wrongly—I submit that an occasion like that, an event like that, is precisely the sort of thing that is contemplated in the Standing Order. Secondly, if on Monday it is found that the Minister has refused to give a grant, will it be held by you, because it has been raised to-day, and you could not accept it as urgent on account of the answer the Minister has just given—will that be held by you to deprive us of our right on Monday to raise the question when the matter is completely closed?

Mr. SPEAKER

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman has shown, in the first place, that the final decision has not yet been given With regard to the other matter, there is the further question of urgent public importance to be considered. I must have regard to the whole field of discretion which is placed in the Minister with regard to granting or refusing a loan. One particular local authority may have a grievance, but I have to regard this question from the point of view of how a ruling of mine would affect all the other local authorities in the country who might have grievances. I should have to consider that when the time arises.