§ 36. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that it is the practice of certain public assistance committees to refuse outdoor relief to able-bodied persons who are living in well-conducted lodging-houses on the ground that such institutions cannot be properly supervised; why effective supervision cannot be exercised; and will he consider advising public assistance committees to abolish this restriction and allow applicants freedom to live where it is most convenient and where they can be available for employment?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREMy right hon. Friend is aware that a number of public assistance authorities have adopted a rule of this kind. He understands the reason for the practice to be the difficulty which has been experienced in keeping in sufficiently close touch with persons who have no settled home and as at present advised he sees no reason for his intervention in the matter.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSDoes not the hon. Gentleman think that where two or three hundred men are domiciled in one building, it would be much easier to supervise them than if they were in separate lodgings in two or three hundred houses; and does he not think that the policy of these public assistance committees tends to overcrowding and that he ought to advise them to change that policy?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREIt is a question of administration, and the rule has been adopted, presumably, in the interests of efficiency, but, if the hon. Gentleman is 926 able to make any practical suggestions, I shall be glad to consider them.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIn view of the fact that in Scotland relief is granted, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see how far that system is a success, and if it is advisable to extend it to this country?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREI will look into that.
§ Mr. LEVYIs the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the intense overcrowding in slum areas, these institutions are from 50 to 60 per cent. vacant, and ought not they to be utilised?