HC Deb 04 March 1940 vol 358 cc45-56
The Chairman

I take it that after the arrangement which has been arrived at it will only be necessary for me to call the Amendments to this Clause but that they will not be moved at this stage. I have no intimation from hon. Members who have Amendments on the Paper that they do not wish to move; therefore, I must call them all.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Batey (Spennymoor)

I want to oppose this Clause. In my opinion it is one of the worst in the Bill. Before the introduction of this Measure no Member of the House would have believed that a Government would have come forward with a Clause giving power to officers of the Board to pay money to someone other than the applicant. But bad as this is, it is even worse to give an officer of the Board power to order an applicant into the workhouse. This is a power which ought not to be in the hands of any officer, I do not care how good he may be. It means that if an old man or old woman is living alone an officer may come to the conclusion that it is better they should go into the workhouse. I know that he has to get the sanction of the tribunal, but that is quite an easy thing to do once the officer has made his report. I take it that this will include the cases mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st February. He said: The Assistance Board have already been gathering a certain amount of material in preparation for what they will have to do. Since I like to take cases and see what it really means, I sent a message to the authorities saying that I should like cases to be given to me to see how they would be dealt with. I will give three instances. Here is a case of a woman who is a pensioner, aged 72. She is bedridden, with a daughter of 49 who looks after her. She lives, I think, in the Middlesex area, and the rent is 13s. 4d. The Board, applying the present regulations, and remembering that we undertake that, under the new procedure, there is to be no worse treatment than those regulations, would give in addition to her 10s. pension, 23s. 6d. in summer and25s. 6d. in winter. What form of adddition to the flat rate will do that?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1492, Vol. 357.] That is just the kind of case where an officer would not give this money but would say that that old woman would be better off in the workhouse hospital, and he has the power, provided he gets the sanction of the appeal tribunal to order that old woman into the workhouse. In my opinion, once this Clause is passed, we shall find a lot of old men and old women ordered to the workhouse, and unless they go there their supplementary pension will not be paid. This is a power which should not be given to any one man and because it is dangerous I am strongly opposed to the Clause.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)

There are one or two very important points raised in this Clause. In the first place it says: Where an officer of the Assistance Board, or on appeal, the appeal tribunal, is of opinion….the officer or tribunal may determine and in Sub-section (2) it says: An applicant who is aggrieved by any such determination as aforesaid made in his case by an officer of the Board may, without leave, appeal to the appeal tribunal. My point is that we are dealing with people of 65 years of age, many of whom have spent their lifetime in the mines or in transport or in other industries, who have had no experience whatever of public life. They are very nervous, and these are the people who will have to go before the Assistance Board. I think the Minister should agree before the Report stage that a trade union representative or a friend of the aggrieved person, or some other representative, should be allowed to state their case before the appeal tribunal. I hope the Minister will agree that some recognised representative shall be allowed to go with them to the appeal tribunal and if necessary state their case.

Mr. A. Jenkins (Pontypool)

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister—

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill)

May I ask your guidance, Sir Dennis? In the event of any of the Amendments of hon. Members being discussed now will it debar these Amendments from being called at a later stage?

The Chairman

There is no later stage with which I am concerned. The next stage will be the Report stage, and as hon. Members know, that is not a matter for me.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

There is one matter arising out of this Clause to which I want to refer. There would appear to be a real danger of getting a quarrel between the public assistance committees and the officers of the Assistance Board. The position of the old persons will be extremely difficult. Whereas it might well be possible to keep these old people in comfortable little homes with an expenditure of about £1 a week for each person, under the arrangement contemplated in the Clause there is a real danger that many of them will be sent to institutions where the cost will be substantially above £1 a week. In the Debates last week, we discussed the question of welfare. With the slightest bit of care many of these old people might have their homes made comfortable for them and might recover from their ill health, but in the circumstances that exist in many parts of the country, the old people will have no representation before the tribunals or the public assistance committees. It seems to me that there is a real danger of making the position extremely difficult for them and causing greater expense to the community. I hope this matter will be considered at a later stage of the Bill.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

In opposing this Clause, I do not want to refer to any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. I want simply to observe that the Committee is committing a dereliction of its plain duty by proposing—if it does propose—to accept this Clause without discussion. I understand that the only reason it is proposed that this Clause and the next Clause should be accepted without any discussion of the Amendments on the Order Paper is that there is some danger that, if too much time is taken on these Clauses, the Bill may be withdrawn or suspended in some sort of way. I do not know what that kind of thing is called in the Committee, but outside it is called blackmail. Apparently, the suggestion made from Government sources is that the Government are giving some small portion of the things which the whole country desires to be given largely and generously, and that unless hon. Members on this side are prepared to accept the crumb which they are being offered from the rich man's table, without asking too many questions about what is left on the table, then the Government will withdraw the Bill.

The Chairman

I did not stop the hon. Member when he first started to make his protest, but I would point out to him that that is not a proper subject for debate now.

Mr. Silverman

I am very anxious not to get outside the Rules of Order. I am explaining the reasons which move me, and which I think ought to move the Committee, not to accept this Clause, at this time, in this way. I oppose the Clause because I feel bound in honour not to yield to blackmail. I have been brought up to believe that not merely the blackmailers but those who yield to black mail are equally dishonourable, and I do not intend to submit to that kind of aspersion. I have always said that this Bill is of no value. When I say the Bill is of no value, I mean that, in my opinion, it is of no value, and I do not regard a threat to withdraw something that is of no value as a threat which need worry me in the least. Yesterday, I had an opportunity of addressing a representative meeting in my constituency. In the whole course of my political endeavours, I have never seen more indignation—

The Chairman

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee is "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silverman

I am endeavouring to explain to the best of my very moderate ability why I think Clause 10 ought not to stand part of the Bill at this time. I think my reason is a good one. I am not dealing with the merits, the ways in which the Clause might be improved, or the Amendments on the Order Paper. I do not want to limit the rights of other people or interfere with them in any way. What I am saying is that Clause 10 has not been discussed, and it has not been discussed because of certain circumstances which I am trying to describe. The failure to discuss the Clause has arisen out of inadequate reasons. The Clause ought not to be accepted. Yesterday, I had an opportunity of addressing a very representative meeting of my constituents on this very matter. I told them—what I sincerely believe—that I had never been more proud of the Parliamentary Labour party than I was during last week in the fight that it made against this miserable proposal.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is apparently persisting in discussing the Bill. He is now referring to matters which took place last week. Last week, Clause 10, which is now before the Committee, was not debated. What the hon. Member is now saying is not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Silverman

I promised my constituents that the struggle which had been maintained so far would be maintained to-day. The reasons which led us to oppose and to criticise various proposals in the Bill last week are much the same as those which, on an adequate examination, would have led us to oppose or seek to amend this Clause. It seems to me that we should be betraying a trust reposed in us if we were, by reason of the dishonourable threat from the Government, to allow ourselves to be deflected from the criticisms which otherwise we would have felt bound to make. One has only to look at the Order Paper to see how many criticisms we would have felt bound to make on this Clause, and I say that we have no right to accept this Clause with our proposals to amend it un-examined, unless the reasons for leaving the Clause unexamined are adequate ones. I maintain that they are not adequate reasons. I think that my hon. Friends are allowing themselves to be deceived in a way in which the Government would frequently like to deceive them—namely, by taking some small part of a proposal and then, by a technique that is becoming almost infamous—certainly notorious—saying, "There is your crumb and unless you accept it with becoming humility and gratitude, we will withdraw it." For my part, I regard that as a dastardly and dishonourable thing to do, and I will have no part or lot in it.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

I should like to put a question to the Minister. I understand we are not discussing the Clause as a whole in the absence of Amendments. In the arrangement which apparently has been made, is it the intention of the Minister at a later stage to make any concession on any of the points raised in the Amendments on the Order Paper? It would be useful to us to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the Amendments and thinks that there are some points in them which would commend themselves to him. Is he considering, at a later stage of the Bill, making any Amendments in the Clause on the lines of some of the Amendments on the Order Paper?

3.59 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot)

I am anxious to keep very closely to the arrangement which has been made, but it might be convenient to hon. Members if I told them that, of course, I have given the closest attention to the Amendments, and that on some of them, I hope, we shall be able to meet the Opposition—as, for instance, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E.Smith). This naturally will arise on the Report stage. The Report stage is not a mere formality, and I hope very much that we shall be able to meet some of the points which are raised by hon. Members in these Amendments, including that referred to by the Hon. Member for Stoke.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

If the Minister intends to make any concessions on these Amendments during the Report stage he should indicate, for the convenience of the Committee, at the earliest possible moment, what those concessions are to be? Otherwise, we shall be debating the whole Clause on the assumption that not one of these Amendments is to be conceded and that no consideration is to be given to any of the points raised in them. Then at the end of the Debate we shall be told that some of our speeches have been quite beside the mark, because certain concessions are to be made. Surely the businesslike procedure would be to let us know beforehand what the Minister proposes to do. It would then be possible for hon. Members to economise the time of the Committee and to make their speeches more relevant by directing them to useful points.

In this case we are following an unusual procedure. It is usual to discuss first the Amendments to a Clause, and to see whether any of those Amendments are accepted, and afterwards to discuss the Clause as a whole. It is then possible to discuss the Clause with full knowledge of what has happened to the Amendments. Under this extraordinary procedure, we do not know what is to happen to these Amendments and we do not know what portions of the Clause will emerge finally from these discussions. If the Minister were to tell us now, in detail, the Amendments which the Government intended to accept, we might then feel that the Clause could be added to the Bill without further discussion. If, on the other hand, there are portions of the Clause as yet unamended, which may be amended later, it places difficulties in the way of those who wish to discuss it. I submit that a statement by the Minister, such as I have suggested, would facilitate progress.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams (Ogmore)

I understand the Minister has indicated that he will consider the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). That point is contained in an Amendment on the Paper to which my name is attached, and I am pleased to learn that the Minister is prepared to consider it, but I would put this further point to him. This morning I have had a communication from the clerk to the public assistance committee of Glamorgan, in which he emphasises the necessity of an old age pensioner having someone to accompany him or her at the tribunal. He also stresses the point that the public assistance committee should be taken into consultation before any old age pensioner is sent to an institution. The Minister will appreciate that in this matter there must be an overlapping of functions between the Board and the public assistance committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider those two points and during the Report stage, I presume, he will let us have an Amendment dealing with this matter which we shall be able to accept.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean (Glasgow, Govan)

My name is attached to an Amendment which seeks to delete Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Sub-section, if retained in the Bill, would impose a penalty, not only on the old age pensioner, but also on the local authority. This Sub-section deals with the case of a pensioner who has to go into an institution for one cause or another, but it refers, mainly, I take it, to those who are being treated for mental disease. In a case of that kind, the individual concerned, prior to his mental derangement, will have been receiving an old age pension with in all probability a supplementation. Both the old age pension and the supplementary pension will now be taken from that individual, and the burden of his maintenance will be cast entirely on the ratepayers. I wish to know from the Minister whether, in the arrangement that has been made between the two Front Benches concerning the discussion of this Clause, any consideration has been given to that point. As a representative of Glasgow, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Glasgow authority is being severely handicapped by the large number of old age pensioners whose resources are being supplemented from the local rates. Others are going into homes for the aged. They are people who have no mental derangement but they are going into these municipal homes with the result that they lose the pension and the entire cost falls upon the Glasgow authority. Are they to be considered and brought back into the old age pensions scheme?

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

On a point of Order. Is it not the case that an arrangement has been arrived at whereby the discussion of the Amendments to this Clause was to be postponed to a later stage; and are we not now discussing in detail the very Amendments the consideration of which we agreed to suspend?

The Chairman

As Chairman of the Committee I have nothing to do with any arrangement which may have been made between parties or groups of hon. Members in the Committee. I understand that some arrangement has been made, and it was referred to by the Prime Minister in the House earlier to-day. On this Clause being called in Committee I called a number of Amendments which appear on the Paper, as I was bound to do, because I received no indication from the hon. Members concerned that they were not to be moved. They were not moved, and that is all I had to do in the matter.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

I understand that an arrangement has been made, and I confess at the outset—

The Chairman

We cannot discuss that arrangement except in so far as it is raised in relation to this Clause. There is a Question before the Committee, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and the discussion must be confined to that Question.

Mr. Bevan

There is a point which arises on that Question and on which I am endeavouring to get an answer from the Minister. Despite what has been said on this side of the Committee about an arrangement, hon. Members have not yet degenerated into the position of being lay figures to be moved about in every conceivable way, as a result of arrangements made behind the Speaker's Chair. What I want to know is, why should we part with this Clause at this time unless we are given by the Minister an indication of what concessions, if any, he proposes to make. We may have an opportunity of discussing these matters on the Report stage, but, as everybody knows, the opportunities for discussion on a Report stage are by no means as good as they are in Committee. We are very much in the hands of Mr. Speaker on the Report stage and I should be very surprised to learn that Mr. Speaker's prerogative has been pre-empted by any arrangement made between the parties. Therefore, we shall be much more limited in our discussion on the Report stage than we are now.

A number of very important points arise on this Clause. There is, for example, the term "personal friend" which appears in the Amendments to which the Minister has referred. It is asked that a personal friend of an applicant should have the right to appear before the tribunal. Would a representative appointed by the old age pensioners' organisation be considered a personal friend? That is an example of the points which arise. We have been very much frightened by this Bill and one of the reasons is that the relationship between the officer of the Board and the old age pensioner may place the latter at a disadvantage because he can no longer have access to any elected representative. He is being deprived of a status which he enjoys at the moment and he is being deprived also of the opportunity of securing advice and assistance from a person over whom he has some control. There is no control at all over the officer of the Board. The tribunal has the power to decide whether any person shall be heard on behalf of the old age pensioner, but the pensioner has no right to say that a person should appear on his behalf. If the Minister told us that an old age pensioner would have the right to say that a person should appear with him and for him, that would satisfy us with regard to that particular Amendment. It would then appear that the individual himself would have that right. If the tribunal itself and not the old age pensioner is to have the right to decide, I can foresee difficulties arising throughout the country. If, on the other hand, the old age pensioner had the right to decide then our position would be very largely met. We do not want the old age pensioner to be put at a disadvantage in being made to feel that he has not had fair play at the hands of the tribunal because his case has not been properly presented. There is an old axiom to the effect that not only should justice be done, but that it should be seen to be done. It will not be seen to be done in this case, unless the old age pensioner receives from the tribunal the consideration which he thinks he ought to have and which he would have received if he had had a representative there on his behalf.

Another very important point arises between the local authority and the Board. This Clause is largely concerned with the relationship between the two. It is true that before the Board can say that a person is unfit to receive an old age pension, or that a person should be handed over to the public assistance authority, notice has to be served on the public assistance authority. But the tribunal is the tribunal of the Board. Where is the appeal tribunal? If a conflict of interest arises between the public assistance authority and the Board, is the tribunal of the Board to have the last voice in determining who shall be chargeable to the public assistance authority? According to Clause 10, the answer is, "yes." There may be words in another part of the Bill which meet that point. There are Amendments on the Paper dealing with it. Are we to have any satisfaction on that matter? There is very bad feeling between the public assistance authorities and the Board and although, under the 1934 Act, there is an appeal outside the Board, under this Bill as far as I understand, the tribunal of the Board itself, a part of the machinery of the Board, will be able to decide whether an old age pensioner is to be chargeable to the Board or to the rates. That seems an inequitable proposal. Surely it is a novel departure in British constitutional practice that, where there is a conflict between two public authorities, one of those authorities should have power to decide the issue.

It seems to me that we are entitled to an explanation from the Minister on those points before we part with the Clause in the Committee stage. If we are not to have that satisfaction it is quite clear that when we come to the Report stage we shall be very much in the hands of Mr. Speaker on the question of whether Amendments are to be discussed or not. I am not raising this point of Order to be awkward. I would say to hon. Members on this side of the Committee that we cannot assume that Bills, placed before the House by Parliamentary draftsmen and the Government, are water-tight in all respects. Very often they contain absurdities of all kinds and it is the duty of the Committee to examine them in order that they may be put into proper shape. The Committee stage would be greatly facilitated if we could have at this stage, and not at some subsequent stage, a statement from the Minister about how he regards these matters. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman frown so sullenly. I imagine he is frowning because of what he imagines is "undisciplined conduct" in connection with this Bill. Our function however is not to be Storm Troopers and say "Heil" whenever an arrangement is made, because we have obligations to our constituencies and we cannot barter them away. I for one do not propose—

The Chairman

The hon. Member is not being stopped from discussing the Clause so I hope he will continue to discuss only the Clause.

Mr. Bevan

I am bound to say that we are all speaking under a great sense of frustation in that we have to make general remarks on the Clause, which would be much more business-like if they were devoted to the merits or demerits of particular Amendments to the Clause. That is our difficulty; and, having prepared our speeches and studied the Bill with a view to elucidating what is in the Government's mind on specific points of the Clause, we are now faced with the position that we have to discuss the whole lot together. It makes the Committee stage of the Bill meaningless. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that unless we can obtain from him some declaration on what he thinks about these matters, we are bound to continue the Debate on the assumption that the Minister is not making concessions upon the points which we have in mind.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Leslie (Sedgefield)

May I ask the Minister whether it is the intention, under Clause 10, still to retain the immense powers given to an officer? If an officer is suspicious of the conduct of a pensioner, his duty, surely, should be to submit that evidence to the Board before any action is taken. Does the Minister propose to retain this immense power given to an officer under Clause 10?

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Elliot

I do not wish in any way to be discourteous to the Committee, and I am very anxious that we should not find ourselves discussing the report of this Clause on the Committee stage. I had Amendments down to this Clause, some of which dealt with one or two of the points raised. I did not move them as a result of the general desire, to come as quickly as may be to the important matters in the Second Schedule. It is not my intention to run away on the Report stage, and the Amendments I put down I shall certainly move. I shall take note of the points raised by hon. Members and try to meet them on the Report stage.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.