POOR LAW RELIEF (MANCHESTER). (Hansard, 7 December 1927)

§ Mr. COMPTON
I desire to draw attention to a question, of which I gave notice on Thursday last week, relative to two questions addressed to the Minister of Health in connection with (1)the reduced scale of relief imposed by the Manchester Board of Guardians, and (2)the attitude of certain guardians towards these reduced scales. The reply of the Minister stated that, so far as he was concerned, he had no knowledge that any report had been made to him with regard to either, of the two questions. This matter was inaugurated some months ago at the instance of two inspectors from the Ministry, Mr. Maslin and Mr. Grant. These inspectors went 1530 from the Liverpool office, and their method of operation was to take their seats in the Relief Committee beside members, and endeavour to instruct the guardians to pay less than the scale of relief previously paid by the guardians. As the result of the report submitted—of which, I again mention, the Minister denies all knowledge—by these two inspectors, a sub-committee was appointed by the board of guardians to go into the whole question. The reference to the committee was

"1. That they consider and report on the various matters referred to in a letter received from Mr. Maslin, Minister of Health Inspector, regarding the administration of outdoor relief in the union;

(2)the whole question of the administration of outdoor relief."
It is very interesting to have the comments of this Sub-committee, which was composed of members of the political party opposite, the members of my own party having refused to take any part in the Sub-committee work owing to the fact that the reduction of the scale was under consideration. This Sub-committee in introducing their report said: The letter above referred to"— 1531 that is the letter from the inspector— having been submitted and read, it was decided that as Mr. Maslin had not furnished the guardians with specific instances of cases in which relief was being granted irregularly and/or contrary to the guardians' regulations, no action be taken regarding the points mentioned in his letter. I wish particularly to emphasise that no irregularities were mentioned by the inspector. He simply gave cases where the relief given was reckoned by the inspector to be more than the wages being paid in some of the works. The position in regard to these unfortunate people is this. The scales of relief have been reduced to a maximum of 28s. a week for a man, a wife, and eight children, and the inspector alleges that, because relief was given which was slightly higher than the wages paid to a labourer in an engineering works in the district, this was an encouragement to these people to remain on relief for ever. I respectfully submit that the Minister of Health or those associated with his Department, instead of claiming a maximum of 28s. for the keep of 10 people for a week, would be very much better employed in looking after the health of the people by raising the wages of the labourer who was supposed to maintain a similar family on that, or, perhaps, a lesser amount. The points I wish to put to the Under-Secretary are these: Is it possible for these inspectors to make a report inviting the guardians to reduce their scales of relief without the knowledge of the Minister or without first submitting it to his Department?
Secondly, I want to know, is it possible that when men 60 years of age, who are too old to be employed in any industry, go to the guardians and receive 14s. a week, they are forced to do a full week's work for that 14s., and after receiving it for a period of six months get an order to go into the workhouse, where the cost of their keep is estimated at 31s. 10d. a week? Is that economy on the part of the Minister and those associated with him? Then the new scale lays it down that any single man or widower receiving 1s. 6d. to 5s. a week relief must work a full week's test before receiving it. The point has often been made in the House during the last week or so that it is impossible for a 1532 man kept fully employed by the guardians to obtain employment in any industry because of his inability to go to the works' gates to get it. As regards the action of the guardians in giving these old men an institutional order, I would ask any Member of any party in the House whether it is humane that old men who have spent the better part of their lives in industry should be sent to the workhouse? To put it another way, is there a man or woman in the House who would care to act as a guardian and send his or her father to the institution if he had done his duty to the community and to the industry, but had become too old to find employment?
My next point is that certain members of the guardians refused to administer these new scales of relief. It is well-known that in the administration of a service of this kind, there are certain guardians who are very regular attendants at the finance committee meetings and the general meetings of the board, but who are so ashamed of their conduct in reducing the relief scales, that they do not take their full share in administering those new scales. The result is that those who have been active in administrative work are now "on strike" and refuse to administer the new scales. Considerable confusion existed last week in the administration of this relief. I want to know if the Minister of Health is satisfied that relief in these cases is now being properly administered? Is he satisfied that the authorities have carried it out in a satisfactory manner during the last two weeks? I wish to have an answer on those points, and we shall then be in a position to judge as to the attitude of the authorities.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)
I can quite understand that the hon. Member who has brought forward this matter has not had a full opportunity of putting his case in the short time at his disposal. I think, however, that there must be some misconception as to the position of the Minister of Hearth in this matter. This is not a case where the Minister has laid down new conditions. It is a case of guardians who have recently come to the conclusion that the scale of relief must be reduced. I have looked at the 1533 figures so far as Manchester is concerned and I am not surprised that they have come to that Conclusion.

§ Mr. SUTTON
Have they come to the conclusion at the request of your inspectors?

§ Sir K. WOOD
I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception as to what is the duty of the general inspectors of the Ministry of Health. It was only the day before yesterday that I answered a question setting out a general instruction to the inspectors of the Ministry of Health in cases of this kind, which was as follows: General instructions have been given that there should be a special inquiry into the administration of boards of guardians, and that it should be made wherever it appears on a prima facie view that there is substantial room for improvement in the administration of the particular board. I notice that the hon. Member to whom I have referred in his question raised the point of the attendance of general inspectors. It should also be known that it is the duty of the general inspectors to attend meetings of every board of guardians in the district. They have the statutory right to attend every board meeting and every parochial meeting and to take part in the proceedings, but not to vote. For some time the inspectors have been satisfied that there is considerable need for improvements, and arrangements are made by the general inspector there to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Manchester Board of Guardians. The general inspector has sent a communication to that particular board of guardians which certainly indicates a very great need for a revision of their administration in many directions.
The average number of persons per 10,000 of the population in receipt of Poor Law relief of any kind in England and Wales was 296—that was last year, the figures for which are the last available—in Manchester, where there are certainly not the difficulty and distress that there are in some other parts of the country, the corresponding figure is 478; and, while the average number of unemployed persons and their dependants, to every 10,000 of the population, in receipt of outdoor relief was 119 throughout the country, in Manchester it is 262. I think that a case of that kind certainly 1534 calls for inquiry, and I hope that in due course this report of the general inspector, whom I know personally, and for whose independence I can vouch, will be made public, and that the board of guardians will be able to give some adequate reply to it.
As to the so-called strike of a certain number of these guardians, my Department has received no communication from them. I believe that at some time a certain amount of inconvenience was caused by the failure of these gentlemen to carry out their duties, without giving any reasonable notice to anyone; but I am now told that proper arrangements have been made and that there is no reason to think that the duties of giving relief in this union area will not be properly and adequately carried out.

§ Mr. COMPTON
If the Minister has had no report, how does he know that everything is satisfactory?

§ Sir K. WOOD
Because I have made inquiries myself. Naturally, when the hon. Member gave me notice of the questions that were going to be raised, I made inquiries as to what exactly the position was. I want the House to understand that these particular gentlemen⁁

§ Mr. SUTTON
And ladies.

§ Sir K. WOOD
—made no complaint to my Department, and I have ascertained since, in order to satisfy the hon. Member, that proper arrangements have been made whereby, I suppose, other people will carry out their work and administer the duties that have to be performed.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Can the hon. Gentleman give us the scale?

§ Sir K. WOOD
No, I have not got it. It is a scale they have arived at themselves without any reference to the Minister of Health.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I meant the previous one.

§ Sir K. WOOD
No. I have not got it. They come to their own conclusion about it, and it is a matter for them. Certainly, the general inspectors of my Department in this area have carried out their duties perfectly fairly and honestly, and there is certainly a good case for 1535 making a thorough inquiry into the affairs of this union, and we shall await with interest the reply that may be made by the guardians. I can assure the hon. Member that so far as the administration of that board and these guardians justifies them- going on strike, I do not 1536 think there need be any apprehension that the duties of the guardians in that area will not be adequately and properly carried out.