CLAUSE 7.—(Guardians committees and sub-committees.) (Hansard, 12 February 1929)

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "unless the Minister for some special reason otherwise directs."
Clause 7 deals with the appointment of guardians committees and sub-committees, and I wish there were a larger attendance in the House at the moment, because this is an occasion when the Minister is reducing his power under the Clause. He feels that the Clause as it was originally drawn really gave too wide a power in the circumstances to the Minister, and the House will see that by a, later Amendment my right hon. Friend proposes that only on representations made by a county council as to the existence of special circumstances shall an exception be made in regard to the appointment of guardians committees. Under the Clause as it was originally drawn, it might have been argued that the Minister could give a direction the effect of which would be to enable the council to vary any of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Clause 7. Of course, that is not the intention, and it is with a view to providing that an exception shall only be made in special circumstances, and at the instance of an authority and not of the Minister himself, that these Amendments are put down. Some people would say that we are taking due note of what has been said in the House with regard to matters of this nature, and at any rate I think the House will agree that we are doing what is perfectly fair in making this provision.

§ Mr. MARDY JONES
On a point of Order. May I ask why it is that the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of others of my hon. Friends, to leave out Clause 6, has not been called?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert)
That Amendment has not been selected. I do not think I should be called upon to give reasons for not selecting it.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
The Parliamentary Secretary has successfully anticipated what we would say on this side of the House. Undoubtedly, there was one Clause in the Bill which, in its original form, might have been called the Clause of Henry VIII. It was more like the Statute of Proclamations than anything else. It really brought up the old philosophical distinction between the law and the decree. I gladly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a sign of grace that the Minister realises that this country, at any rate, is not prepared to give to Ministers undue powers. We do not want to see in this country people going to gaol for muttering against the Government, as apparently they do in certain other parts of the world at the present moment. This concession is all the more welcome because the first outcry about it came, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, from these benches.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out the word "twenty-four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-six."
The House will observe that this Amendment deals with the number of members of the guardians committee. My right hon. Friend has given serious consideration to the representations which have been made in many quarters, particularly by some of my hon. Friends who represent important rural areas, as to whether it would not be possible to increase the number of members on these committees, so that the committees might include as many of the old guardians as possible. I need hardly say that it has been the desire throughout the preparation of this Measure to utilise the knowledge and the personal influence and touch which a large number of these men and women undoubtedly possess, and I know that there is a great anxiety that we should not do anything to deprive the country of the value of those services. We think that if we accept the suggestion, which has been made from more than one quarter, that the number should be increased from 24 to 36, that will give a committee of a proper size, not too large, but giving fair representation to a large number of these men and women, who undoubtedly deserve well of the country. It has been suggested that the number 322 should be unlimited, and that the county council should be able to appoint any number that it may wish to appoint. I think that that would be undesirable, because all sorts of pressure might be brought to bear on the council, and it might lead to the appointment of a very unwieldy committee. The figure of 36 which we have selected has been suggested by many of my hon. Friends, and we feel that, if the number be enlarged to that extent, it will afford a fair representation of the old guardians and a workable committee which will be able to carry out its duties efficiently and properly. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, put his name to this Amendment in order to meet, as we hope, the wishes of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, and we hope that the House will accept it.

§ Mr. MARDY JONES
It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual tactics, is trying to give a sop to the guardians who are going to disappear. The Home Secretary announced at Question time to-day that there would be no more guardians' elections, and this Amendment to increase the number is really a sop to the guardians to enable them to use their experience as co-opted members. We object to the proposal on the principle that co-option is very objectionable in itself, and we could not possibly agree with it on that ground alone. Then, if you are going to increase the number in each division to serve in this way, you are going to increase the difficulty of getting suitable people. In practice, these divisions of a county into areas will need at least as many members as the areas of the existing Poor Law union, and probably double the number in many counties, and that is going to give you a very large personnel. The principle of co-opting people for this kind of thing is wrong. The guardians for many generations have themselves been elected to the existing Poor Law unions. In that capacity, they were directly responsible to the people who elected them and to the ratepayers and the needy poor. But by the principle of co-option they will not be responsible in any way, and this talk of utilising these persons, with their past experience, to guide the members of county and borough councils in Poor Law administration is a reflection upon those public bodies that they have 323 not the capacity to do the work themselves. It is also a reflection upon the persons whom it is proposed to co-opt that they cannot get on to these bodies in a public capacity as elected representatives of the people.

§ Sir E. TURTON
I am sorry the hon. Member opposite proposes to divide against the Amendment. So far as county councils are concerned, it was not intended or desired in any way to be a sop to the guardians. It merely says the maximum may be 36. It does not in the least mean that in those schemes you are to provide for the committee consisting of such a large number as 36. We have heard a great deal about the human touch and the sympathy that has been shown by the guardians in the past, and no words of praise are too great to give to those who have given their services as guardians in the past. But surely, with these new committees, you want the experience of those devoted people to assist these new guardians' committees in order to help them with their work. This was asked for by the county councils at the first conference they had with the Minister of Health, when they pointed out that in their judgment the figure of 24 should be taken away and 36 substituted. In the Brigg Union, in Lincolnshire, which in all probability will be an area for the purpose of a guardians' committee, you have seven district councillors, 13 local county councillors and four aldermen; that is a total of 24, without any possibility of putting on women or those with special knowledge of this guardians' work.
I am sorry the hon. Member appears to think the principle of co-option is adverse to the utility of this scheme. I anticipate that only those will be put on who are worthy of being co-opted for work of this description. It has also to be remembered that there are very large areas in some of these unions, and there will have to be a great number of committees and sub-committees for this work. There is in most unions the boarding-out of children. That means a great deal of work, and it means at present a special committee. In the Thirsk Union we have a special committee, formed principally of ladies, who give a great deal of time to it, and we have a system that is so very well managed that we have children from 324 Blackpool and other parts of the surrounding country. That will mean a great deal of work, and it will be impossible if you have a small committee for a large standard area to perform all their duties in the way that otherwise they can. I hope hon. Members will not press this matter to a Division on the assurance that the county councils consider it necessary in order to make this a workable scheme.

§ Mr. WEBB
I gather that this increase in the total number does not remove the limitation in paragraph (b iii): That the number of persons so appointed shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members of the committee. That is going to stand?

§ Mr. WEBB
Therefore, the increase from 24 to 36 will necessarily, at most, only mean that the co-opted members, instead of being eight, may be 12?

§ Mr. WEBB
I do not love co-opted members, but I do not think I should be inclined to vote against the Amendment, provided only that this restriction that the numbers are not to be more than a third, remains. If we are to have co-opted members, I do not so particularly mind whether they are eight out of 24 as a maximum or 12 out of 26. The principle remains the same for good or evil just as it was before. Under those circumstances, I shall not feel inclined to vote against the Amendment.

§ Mr. TOMLINSON
I should like to say how greatly I appreciate the concession which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced. Increasing the number in some measure meets the criticism I brought against the Clause previously. I wanted to see the committee invested with greater power in addition to increasing its number. That has not been met, and I am afraid that in rural districts there will be still quite a number of parishes in one union which cannot find representation on the committee, although the number is increased from eight to 12. But, seeing that it goes some way towards meeting the difficulty which I foresee will arise in rural areas, I should like to say how greatly I appreciate it.

§ Sir B. PETO
Life consists of compromises. This Amendment does not give 325 many of us all that we thought really necessary. The point of the hon. Member who has just spoken is perfectly right. In widely scattered areas it is very important, on the particular question with which these guardians committees are going to deal, that individual parishes should be represented. For this reason, the one thing you want is that the committees shall consist of persons who, individually and severally, have special knowledge of the cases that have to be dealt with. One thing we want to avoid is that this question of poor relief should become simply a matter of administration by officials. We have never had it in the past. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) paid a well merited tribute to the boards of guardians. They have done devoted service, not in the limelight but for the love of doing public service for the people who most needed it. We have pressed the view upon the Ministry that these guardian committees are not ordinary committees. If a committee were required to settle questions of policy, probably the best committee would he a committee of one, because that would avoid disputes and, given the right man, we should get the right policy.
Here, we have no questions of policy or grave matters of finance to decide, but we have to get together a body which will be sufficiently large and sufficiently elastic to meet the contingencies of all kinds of Poor Law relief. To do that, we want a body of more than 24 people. In my own Poor Law union we have at present a board of guardians consisting of 40 members. The proposal in the Bill would cut that number down by nearly one-half. Far more than one-half of that body, to-day, are very active members, dealing with individual districts and knowing the individuals who live in them. To propose, as a Poor Law reform, the cutting down of such a board of guardians as that into a body of little more than half, would, obviously, be a retrograde step. I am glad that there is a consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment. We all want, what we shall get under this Bill, better Poor Law administration, and this Amendment helps to that end.

§ Mr. KELLY
I am sorry to spoil the opinion of the last speaker, if he thinks that there is only one hon. Member on 326 this side who is inclined to take exception to this proposal. I desire to raise my voice against it, and I hope that there are many other hon. Members against it. I cannot Took upon this proposal as a concession, as did the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson). It is no concession to increase the number of people who are co-opted for this work and who are to be engaged upon the work of Poor Law relief which has been done by the boards of guardians. I pay my tribute to the work which has been done by the boards of guardians, and to the devoted service which they have rendered to the people who have had to seek relief. We are increasing the number of those who are co-opted for this service, who have not the responsibility to the electors that devolves upon those who are elected, and who would not have the same responsibility and the same regard, probably, in the conducting of their work in the rural districts. We know, often enough, the people who are co-opted for this work, and it is safe to assume who will be co-opted for the work in the future. The whole principle of co-option is wrong, and the mere increasing of the number from 24 to 36 in order to increase the number of people who may be co-opted is certainly not a concession, and not an advantage, but a disadvantage to the work.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
While welcoming the concession, I do not think that it is enough. There is no particular reason for fixing the number at 36. There is no particular magic in that number. We are justified in considering that it is not the idea of the Minister that the areas to be looked after by the guardians' committees should he any smaller than the present union areas. It is certain that if the union areas remain the same, we cannot maintain the same personal touch that we have now if the number of members is to be limited to 36. In the case of one union in my constituency there are 56 parishes and 72 members, and each member knows his parish intimately and knows every person in the parish. If one guardian is to look after two, three or four parishes, which may be three or four miles apart, it is impossible to have that personal knowledge of every appli- 327 cant for relief that he has at the present time.

§ Mr. MARDY JONES
I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that these people will not have to look after the parishes. They will have to look after the people in the parishes, and as there will be very few people in each parish applying for Poor Law relief, one man might very well look after a dozen parishes.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
There may only be few applicants in one parish, but if one guardian is to look after a number of parishes he will not know the people individually, as at present. Anyone who attends a meeting of a board of guardians in a country district will know that every individual who makes application for relief is vouched for and his case is explained by the member representing that particular parish. He knows the case personally, but if, in future, he has to look after three or four parishes, he cannot know each personal applicant individually, and he will have to go by what is said by the relieving officer or some other official. We are to limit the number to 36. No real reason for doing that has been forthcoming.
We have been told that we must trust the county councils. The Government are prepared to trust the county councils very far, in many ways. Why not trust them to decide the number to be on the committee. No one can possibly know the necessities of the county and of each district, except the county council which prepares the scheme. As we have trusted the county councils in many things larger than this, why not trust them in this? I am certain that if the limit of 36 were taken out, it would be easier to work the scheme. It would remove certain objections to the scheme. One objection is that the scheme will lead to bureaucracy, to our depending upon the officials and not upon personal touch. The putting in of the limit of 36 will mean depending upon the relieving officer and not upon the personal touch of the guardian. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to make the number unlimited. If he is not prepared to do that himself, will he leave it to a free vote of the House?

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
As this will be the last opportunity to enter a protest against the scheme of co-option, I should not like to allow this opportunity to go by without expressing my objection to this part of the Bill. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Tiverton (Lieut.- Colonel Acland-Troyte) to talk about the county councils, and to say that we should trust the county councils to carry out their duties fairly and equitably; but the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, making poverty a bar to representation on the county councils, makes it perfectly obvious that in regard to the elected members of many county councils, and particularly in that part of England which the hon. and gallant Member represents, the representation will be drawn from his own particular party.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
There are a good many people not of my party on the county council and district councils of my county. I agree that they have too much sense in my part of the country to elect Socialists.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
My point was that poverty is to be a bar to representation on the county councils. Therefore, not only shall we have the representation drawn from one particular section of the community in regard to the elected members, but the co-opted members, in all probability, will be drawn from the same layer of society. Consequently, democracy as we know it is not going to exist. It will be less represented in the future administration by county councils than is the case at the present time. Because of that, and the fact that notwithsanding our supposed perfect political democracy and equality in our franchise law, this part of the Bill is destroying the value of the vote given to tens of thousands of people, we should not be doing our duty if we did not enter a protest against this proposal, which is the third of a series of Bills or Acts of Parliament which are entirely designed to prevent one section of the community having any sort of representation. It is the poor who are obliged to apply for Poor Law relief: those whose income has never reached such a stage that they could prepare for a single rainy day. That section of the community which is always living within one week of the workhouse, are to have 329 no say in the administration of the Poor Law in the future. The provision as to co-opted members is wholly contradictory, and no hon. Member in any part of the House, who has any sort of belief in political democracy, could support it for a single moment. I hope that this Clause will not pass without recording our final protest on the matter.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "Committee" in line 27, to the end of line 33.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted are introduced as a separate Sub-section by a later Amendment.

§ Mr. HURD
Is not this a substantial limitation of the operation of this Clause?

§ Sir K. WOOD
If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will find that exactly the same words are incorporated in another place. It is more suitable for them to appear there.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "discharge" in line 34, to the first word "of" in line 37, and to insert instead thereof the words: subject to such general or special restrictions or conditions as the county council may from time to time impose, by each guardians' committee or a sub-committee thereof. This is to enable the guardians' committee to act through sub-committees. The House will be well aware that in practice boards of guardians in industrial areas deal with applications for relief through such sub-committees sitting for separate parts of the union. This is found to be more convenient in practice, and it is to enable this to be done that I am moving this Amendment.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 13;to 15 inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words: (v) the appointment of the necessary officers to carry out the work of the guardians committee, but the amount of salary shall be approved by the county 330 council, and no officer shall be appointed or dismissed without the sanction of the county council. 9.0 p.m.
Under the Bill at present, county councils cannot delegate the appointment of any officer to the guardians committee. My Amendment makes it possible for them to do so, provided that the appointment or dismissal of any officer is made with the sanction of the county council. Any sensible county council will, of course, consult the guardians committee before they appoint or dismiss these officers but as they will be more directly under the control of the guardians committee it is only right that they should have a say in their appointment. It would be well to give the county council the right to delegate these appointments to the guardians committee because I think it would make it much easier for them to run the scheme successfully.

§ Sir B. PETO
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I am afraid that I cannot ask the House to accept this proposal. It would be very undesirable to delegate the power of appointing and dismissing these officers to the guardians committee. They are officers, under the new scheme, of the county council, and it is almost impossible to visualise a satisfactory service in a case where some officers are appointed by the county council and others appointed by the guardians committee. I think the House will recognise that this is very undesirable from the point of view of the service generally. It would tend to set up separate sets of officers. I think the guardians committee may trust the county council to act properly in selecting officers and in proper cases to dismiss them. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

§ Mr. HURD
I should like to point out that, while there is undoubtedly something in what the right hon. Gentleman has said unless the Amendment is carried, you are putting some restriction upon the freedom of action and usefulness of the guardians committee. If the officers who have to carry out the work of the guardians committee are constantly looking to the county centre instead of to the committee with whom their duties are more immediately related you are depriving the guardians committee of 331 opportunities of usefulness which they otherwise would have. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the matter himself or has taken the opinion of the county councils, but if he looks at it from the point of view of the efficient working of the guardians committees I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that upon representations made by the council of any county that special circumstances exist in that county or in any part thereof the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that the provisions of this Section shall not apply as respects that county or part. This is consequential upon the Amendment which I moved just now, and which the House accepted.

§ Mr. HURD
I should like to ask whether there is any appeal whatever in a case of this sort?

§ Sir K. WOOD
No.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert the words: (2) Where a district is not wholly comprised within one county, the portion of the district situate within any county shall, for the purposes of the last preceding Subsection, be treated as if it were a separate district. (3) In appointing persons other than elected members of the county council to be members of any guardians' committee a county council shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who are members of Poor Law authorities immediately before the appointed day and other persons of experience in the matters to be dealt with by the committee. This Amendment is moved to deal with what, I suppose, is the rare case of a county district being situated in more than one county, and the effect of the Amendment is to enable the part of the district which lies inside of the particular county either to be treated as a guardians committee area by itself, or to be combined with other areas in the county so as to form a guardians committee area.

§ Sir E. TURTON
I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "for" in line 16, to the end of line 24, and to insert instead thereof the words: effective consultation between the public assistance committee and the guardians' committee of any area upon business relating specially to that area, and in particular shall empower every guardians' committee to nominate their chairman or other representative to be present at any meeting of the public assistance committee at which business specially relating to the area of the guardians' committee is to be transacted. Any person so nominated shall be entitled to take part in the proceedings at any such meeting so far as they relate specially to the area of the guardians' committee by whom he was nominated but not to vote. The Clause, as at present in the Bill, only provides for notice being sent to each guardians committee of any meeting of the public assistance committee at which business relating to the area of the guardians committee is to be transacted, and then goes on to provide for a representative or chairman being present. It is necessary that the scheme should provide for much more effective consultation between the two bodies, the assistance committee and the guardians, than is given. There are a great many ways in which it is desirable to have consultation. We want, of course, on both sides, the best advice and assistance that can be given. I shall not trouble to point out the different objects that might be set out and probably will have to be set out in any scheme, but I hope the House will take it from me that it would considerably hamper any scheme if the provision was for only one simple consultation as set out in the Clause. The Amendment would make it much wider by providing for effective consultation.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I beg to second the Amendment.