New Clause "A."—(Accommodation in reception centres in special cases.) (Hansard, 12 May 1948)

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause was drafted after consultation with the London County Council. When the system of casual wards was in operation—as it was until the outbreak of war in 1939—casuals entering wards were subject to detention for up to 48 hours and were required to do certain work. The casual ward system is at present suspended. The new arrangements propose that casuals entering reception centres, provided under Clause 17, will not be subject to detention. The only work they will be required to do will be a share of the housework of the centre. Recent experience of the L.C.C., to which our attention has been called, suggests that a number of persons are ready to settle down indefinitely in a centre if they are not subject to some form of discipline. We are reluctant to take any action in such cases except where there is full justification. Our investigations show that in particular cases there is justification, and the Clause is designed to meet such cases. It will be seen that the operation of the Clause is subject to the authority of the Minister being obtained for each particular set of premises to which it is proposed to apply it. This safeguard will be retained by the Minister.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
In each particular centre, or in certain cases only?

§ Mr. Griffiths
In each particular centre. Subsection (3) gives a right of appeal to the person with whom it is proposed to deal under the Clause. If such a person indicates his intention to appeal the operation of the Clause is suspended until his appeal has been heard. I thought it was essential to insert those two protections, first, to retain for the Minister the right to designate any particular premises and, secondly, to protect people who seek accommodation by giving them the right of appeal and making any order unenforceable until their appeal has been heard. The Board were satisfied that some arrangements of this kind were required for a particular centre. We do 2132 not think there are very many in the whole of the country, but we have amply covered ourselves. The London County Council made out a case that it was essential and desirable and that is why we agreed to this proposal.

§ Lieut. Colonel Elliot
This is admittedly a thorny problem. When it was considered by Standing Committee it caused a great deal of heart-searching. It was common agreement that some provisions of the kind were necessary. Admittedly the Committee were very desirous that they should be surrounded with due safeguards, and in the other place the provisions here were accepted unanimously without a vote after a brief Debate. This is obviously a case where we shall proceed by trial and error, but we should move cautiously. On this side of the House we believe that these powers are necessary and the Minister has taken them to safeguard his position and the position of those who come under the powers of the Measure and under the new Clause.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I hope the Minister will assure the House that the powers in this new Clause, if they are used at all, will be used with very great caution. Obviously, they open the back door to the restoration of a great deal that it is the object of this Bill to sweep away. I know that the Minister is satisfied that he needs some kind of powers, and I would not take the responsibility of opposing them here, but I should like him to say a word or two about the way in which the powers will be exercised. For instance, the Clause does not give us very much information as to the kind of person to whom this direction will, in fact, be applied; what will be the basis of an appeal to the tribunal; what kind of direction will be given to the tribunal in order to adjudicate; how long will it take a tribunal to decide upon such a case; what happens in the meantime; or what kind of work will be asked for, in what place, between what hours and under what conditions? It seems to me a pity that the Minister felt obliged to accept this Clause at all. I hope he will give us a little more information about it before he asks us to add it to the Bill.

§ Mr. Berry (Woolwich, West)
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) 2133 draws attention to the difficulties of this new Clause. We are all one with my hon. Friend in what he says, for none of us wants to see the restoration of the conditions that this Bill is designed to abolish once and for all. If we lived in a perfect world—and some of us are doubtful whether we could live in a perfect world—

§ Mr. S. Silverman
We should not need any of these reception centres in a perfect world.

§ Mr. Berry
Nor should we need the safeguards. We do not live in a perfect world and since the war the world has become increasingly difficult. Speaking on behalf of the London County Council, I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for including this Clause. I agree that this thing requires greater safeguards, but we can leave the regulations safely in the hands of the Minister. On behalf of the County Council I can assure the Minister and the House that we do not intend that there should be any harsh enforcement of these regulations.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I should like to say that I was reluctant to accept any provision of this kind. Our attention was called to one institution in London by the London County Council, and we took particular steps to find out whether the problem required some power and authority in the Bill. This problem is one of people using these homes for a permanent residence when they are not intended for any such purpose. Only one institution has been brought to my notice and I do not want to name it. Indeed, I do not think it would be wise to do so, and so I hope I will not be pressed on that score. We took careful steps to find out that there was a problem which required the powers provided in the Clause. Having decided there was, we were anxious to follow out the purpose and the spirit of the scheme and so we laid it down that first, these regulations were not to apply to any single institution unless I gave authority for it; and, secondly, if it should be applied to any particular centre and imposed on any individual he or she can appeal, and pending that appeal the powers in the 2134 Clause will not be enforced against that person. We have safeguarded ourselves in every possible way, but this new Clause is designed to deal with particular circumstances. It is our hope that there are no other such institutions in the country, but it is essential that in the Bill we should try to protect ourselves while at the same time carrying through the spirit and purpose of the Bill.

Mrs. Braddock
I am still not quite satisfied. I should like to know what type of work is being suggested in Subsection 4 (b). If this is a question of a deterrent in order to get somebody out of a reception centre, what sort of work is it suggested that he ought to be given, because if it is the ordinary type of work, I should not think that that would be the sort of thing to prevent someone remaining at a reception centre. On the other hand, if it is suggested that some other sort of work ought to be applied or insisted upon, then we are getting dangerously near the type of task work we objected so strongly to in the years after the last war. This is a matter about which I am not very happy. I do not think that the type of reception centre that we suggest here is going to be anything like the workhouse where certain sorts of work could be suggested for people to do. I should like the Minister to say something further than has been said up to now about this position, particularly in reference to the sort of work that is going to be suggested and whether it will be the sort of work which will prevent people staying at a reception centre if they desire to do so.