HC Deb 12 February 1929 vol 225 cc314-20
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out the words "An administrative," and to insert instead thereof the words: A council in preparing an administrative scheme shall have regard to the desirability of securing that, as soon as circumstances permit, all assistance which can lawfully be provided otherwise than by way of poor relief shall be so provided, and accordingly any such. I am introducing this Amendment in order to carry out an undertaking which I gave in Committee to put into this Clause some sort of a statement of the intentions of the Government and of Parliament, which would indicate what I think a good many hon. Members in various parts of the House wish to see indicated, not merely that an administrative scheme should be made, and that certain functions could be carried out under the special Acts which are mentioned in Clause 5, but that it was the intention that these functions should be carried out when the opportunity permitted. We had a Debate at some length on the Committee stage, and I stated then that there did not seem to be very much difference in theory between hon. Members opposite and those of us on this side. We all look forward to endeavouring to treat persons who are suffering from various ailments as far as possible alike, but I pointed out at that time that it was not of the slightest use stating that everybody should be treated so at once, because it would be necessary that the institutions should be adapted to the new purposes, and in some places the institutions do not exist. There are many areas where there are not sufficient institutions to carry out the intentions of this Clause. I said then that I should be willing to put words into the Clause which would state what was the intention of the Government. In spite of all the remarks which were made by hon. Members opposite about the uselessness of declaratory Clauses—and some hon. Members opposite have stated both views, that they are useful and that they are of no use—they asked for a declaration of this kind, and I hope that they will welcome it very warmly.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he puts on us the responsibility for asking for a declaration of his intentions. I have said on more than one occasion that I very strongly disapprove of declarations of intention in Acts of Parliament. I have said that they meant nothing, that they involved nobody, that they did not impose obligations, and that they are merely pious expressions. This particular declaration falls into that category. What is the right hon. Gentleman's argument against making this Clause mandatory straight away? It is that the institutions are not there. That is not an answer to the case. The argument that was always used when it was proposed to raise the school age was that the schools were not there, but the schools were never brought into existence until after the school-leaving age had been raised. That must always be so. If you are to wait for the time when local authorities will develop their institutions to a point which will make it possible to completely break up the Poor Law, you will have to wait for ever. The right hon. Gentleman has delayed the settlement of the powers of West Ham Board of Guardians until a definite date in 1935. If he wants to keep his powers, I agree that he might as well limit the time, and I think there is no reason why he should not have said here: "It is true at the moment that these institutions are not there, but they shall be there by the time I take my hands off the West Ham Board of Guardians, say in 1935." This Clause does not carry any single local authority any distance whatever. It will still be open to it to continue to administer the Poor Law in the old way. It will have regard to the desirability of doing it differently, but it is unlikely to do so.

At the present time, the care of the destitute is under two kinds of authorities, municipal authorities or other local authorities on the one hand, and the Poor Law authorities on the other. There is no reason why, with the fusion of institutions and forces and with a time limit, you should not have put into the Bill an instruction to local authorities to develop on these lines. I am not certain that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, so far as theory is concerned, we are not divided. I think we are divided in this sense, that.

the right hon. Gentleman believes that we can break up the Poor Law while still leaving the unemployed to the local authorities, whereas we have never held that view, and I do not believe that we ever shall hold it. But, outside the maintenance of the poor, it is true that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed with the view which we have held on this side for 20 years, and we welcome him into our ranks. The difficulty over Clause 5 is that he will not grasp the nettle, that he will not make it mandatory upon local authorities to prepare their schemes so that they shall break up the Poor Law and deal with various phases of destitution according to need. I think he is merely putting something into the Clause to meet the criticisms of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, because this Clause cannot meet the situation.

I have my own views as to whether the right hon. Gentleman will put in a time limit; but the only way to achieve what he has in mind is to make the Clause mandatory. This method of expressing hopes, of giving a little advice to local authorities in Acts of Parliament, does not seem to me to be the way to do it. I have no strong objection to this Amendment. I shall not divide against it. I do not think it means very much. If it persuades a single local authority to honour it in the direction of breaking up the Poor Law, I shall be very glad; but we are not thanking the right hon. Gentleman for a great deal in this Amendment. He has noticed that gratitude is not one of my greatest qualities; but, so far as this goes, we do not object to this form of words, although we would have preferred much stronger provision which would have put in some specified date making the breaking up of the Poor Law compulsory on all local authorities.

Mr. E. BROWN

I wish the Minister had gone a little further and left out the word "may." I think it is a pity that the word "shall" was not inserted in the first line of the Clause. It is obvious that we may have one area preparing a scheme carrying this Clause into effect and another area may not do so. The feeding of school children is carried out under the Education Acts and not under the Poor Law. If it should happen that a county does not make a scheme to carry out the declarations of this Clause, then you are putting the feeding of the children under the Poor Law, and that seems to me to be a step backward. If the word "shall" had been inserted into the Clause, then we should have had a uniform system of schemes so that we should have got every possible service for the poor people which could be given under the Public Health Acts and not under the Poor Law. I welcome the Amendment.

Mr. ELLIS

I welcome this Amendment, but I do not accept the view that it should have been made mandatory throughout the Clause. Whenever we have come across anything connected with the question of retaining the services of the guardians, and especially women guardians, it has always been pointed out that such a proposal would have the effect of preventing them having an opportunity of serving on these committees. If this Clause had been made mandatory, it is more than probable that a great deal of the work would have been turned over to existing committees by the local authorities, and there would not have been room for a great many of the guardians, and more especially women guardians, to take up work of the kind which is dealt with in other parts of the Bill.

We are not going very far wrong by simply suggesting to the local authorities what is the hest thing for them to do, but we should not compel them to do these things against their will. If these various public assistance committees succeed in attracting the guardians who have hitherto done the work, and if this work is transferred under the Clause as amended, it is quite possible that a great many of them may be induced to take up public work and come on to the public assistance committees, whereas if the Clause had been mandatory they might have shied badly at the whole thing. This Clause will leave practically nothing to be dealt with but destitution, apart from the ordinary work which a local authority can do at the present time. I do not think the Labour party, after having asked for the breaking up of the Poor Law, should complain now that they have got it, or at any rate the beginning of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out the word "Where."

The Clause, as it is worded, seems a direct negation of the Amendment which the Minister of Health has just moved, which apparently assumes that only in a few cases counties will hand over the education of Poor Law children to the education authorities. The trend of thought during the last quarter of a century has been that the less children are associated with the Poor Law the better for the country and the better for the children, because it gives them a better chance of becoming good citizens and maintaining their self-respect. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the districts which have been most successful in this connection. Take, for example, the Bethnal Green Guardians, who have established a fine institution for children in the county of Essex. In years gone by the Bethnal Green Guardians used to attend to the education and the training of the children in their institutions, but the more modern conception is that the education of Poor Law children is done more efficiently in the ordinary elementary schools. Under the more modern system, the Poor Law children mix with the other children of the district; they get the ordinary education which is given to other children, and the general effect has been most satisfactory. Many of our Poor Law children have clone very well and obtained good jobs, and, whether they have remained in this country or gone to the Dominions, they have in most cases proved successful.

To suggest, as this Clause does, that a scheme may he adopted which would retain the education of the children under the old clumsy machinery of the Poor Law instead of adopting the scheme to bring the education of the children under the Education Act of 1921 is giving a wrong lead to the county authorities, and it is putting into their minds the idea that the children should he kept outside the ordinary machinery of the Education Act of 1921. I want to make this duty mandatory, and make it clear to the authorities who are responsible that it is their duty to come into touch with the local education authorities and send their Poor Law children to the ordinary schools, so that they may get the advantage of going up the ladder of the local education authority organisation outside the Poor Law. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to take a leaf out of the book of the Minister of Health, and say that he is prepared to be persuaded by reason to make a concession in this direction.

Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

I think the House will be in agreement with the argument which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward, and it is the desire and the object of the Government as quickly as possible to bring about what he desires. The only reason why I cannot accept his Amendment is one with which I think he will agree when I put it before him. It is that there are still, and will be when the Bill becomes law, a certain number of large residential schools which at the present time belong to the guardians, and which cannot be taken over by the authority under the Education Act; and it may be difficult, pending the provision of new buildings, for the children to be brought to the existing elementary schools, or for the school buildings of the residential schools to be separated and brought under the charge of the education authority. It is simply for that reason, which is more a physical reason than anything else, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS

Would it not be possible to hand over these educational institutions to the local education authority?

Sir K. WOOD

No, I do not think so; we are advised that that would not be possible, at any rate at present, and that is the difficulty in accepting this Amendment. I hope, however, that the hon. Member, who, as I know, has taken a great deal of interest and done a great deal in connection with this matter, as has also the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, will feel that, although we are prevented for the reason I have mentioned, from accepting an Amendment of this kind, we do go a considerable way in that direction, and I think I can state without exaggeration that over the greater part of the country the object that the hon. Gentleman has in view will be covered. I hope, at any rate, that he will feel that we have gone as far as we really can in the existing circumstances, and that it is only for the reason I have mentioned that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS

On the understanding that the Minister is going to use his influence in the direction I desire, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.