HL Deb 12 August 1904 vol 140 cc369-77

[SECOND READING]

Order of the day for the Second Reading read.

LORD KENYON

My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble the House at any length on this Bill, as your Lordships have already had it before you this session in a slightly different form. You also had it before you last year, and it was debated in 1901. The principles of the Bill are to encourage thrift by allowing boards of guardians in giving relief to omit from consideration sick pay to the amount of 5s. per week afforded by friendly societies; and, secondly, to secure uniformity of treatment throughout the country. At the present moment boards of guardians an empowered to omit sick pay from consideration if they choose, but it is discretionary. Therefore, it is possible in one union for a man to have his sick pay taken into consideration when the grant of out-relief is made, and in a neighbouring union for a man to have the out-relief granted without his sick pay being considered.

This Bill was a private Bill in the House of Commons, but it has now been adopted by the Government, and the President of the Local Government Board has spoken in its support. A measure of this nature was moved by Lord Monks-well this session, and it passed through all its stages up to the Third Reading. It was then considered that it was a breach of privilege of the House of Commons, inasmuch as it affected the rates, and therefore the Bill was dropped. The principle has also been debated on a Motion by the Earl of Northbrook, who urged that an inquiry should be held on the question before this Bill passed into law, but the friendly societies refused to give evidence before such an inquiry, and there does not therefore seem to be much hope of getting any information by that means. The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, urged the Government to accept responsibility for this Bill. They have now done so, and I hope that that will dispose of one of his contentions in the matter. It has been urged that the friendly societies should not receive special treatment in this matter. I would suggest that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent other forms of thrift being considered if your Lordships think it advisable at any future time to treat those forms of thrift in a similar way. I would urge this fact, that a man who invests his savings in a friendly society gets no benefit while he is in health, whereas in any other form of investment he probably would. This Bill has passed the House of Commons three times without a division, and I do not think it is consistent with the usual manner in which your Lordships treat measures that come up from the other House that you should refuse to give it a Second Reading.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Kenyon.)

* THE EARL OF WEMYSS

, who had given notice to move, "That this House is of opinion that no alteration should be made in the principles of Poor Law relief as now administered, save on the direct responsibility of the Government, and after a full independent public inquiry into the working of the present law; and this House meantime thinks it undesirable to proceed further with this Bill," said: My Lords, I am satisfied with the expression of opinion contained in my Resolution, and I shall not, therefore, detain you with many remarks. Poor Law questions are vital to the nation, and, I venture to submit, ought not to be dealt with without full inquiry. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law of 1838, but I would remind you that at that time the labouring classes were entirely demoralised owing to the action of the Poor Law. Labourers used to say then, "Damn work, blast work; why should I work when I can get 12s. off the rates?" Stringency is necessary in regard to questions of outdoor relief, and such a measure as this should not be forced through Parliament when your Lordships' House has been put in duress by the suspension of the Standing Orders.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook has given a great deal of attention to this subject, and he recently presented a mass of petitions from Poor Law guardians who are objecting to being compelled to do that which they think in the long run will be demoralising to the people. I asked to-day to see these petitions, and I took up the top one, which happened to be the humble petition of Sir Wyndham Portal, ex-president of the Hampshire Friendly Society; Sir John Hibbert, president of the North Western Poor Law Conference and one of the highest authorities in this country on matters affecting Poor Law; Captain B. T. Griffith-Boscawen, chairman of the Central Committee of Poor Law Conferences—a body recognised by the Local Government Board as representing Poor Law guardians all over the country; Mr. Joseph Brown, president of the Poor Law Unions Association; Sir William Chance, Bart., hon. secretary of the Central Committee of Poor Law Conferences; Sir Thomas Dyke Arland, and others.

Now, what do they say? They state that no evidence has been produced and no sufficient reasons furnished for interfering, as this Bill proposes, with the discretionary power of boards of guardians in dealing with applications from members of friendly societies under existing statutes and the Order of the Local Government Board; that the Act of 1894 was in principle discretionary, and was passed in order to legalise a practice, already adopted by many boards of guardians, of giving special assistance to members of friendly societies, and not as a permissive measure, accepted with a view to further legislation, limiting or withdrawing in these cases the discretionary power of boards of guardians. I desire particularly to read to your Lordships this statement in their petition— The proposed Bill is a serious infringement of the Poor Law, inasmuch as Poor Law relief is legally available for the destitute only and for the provision of the necessaries of life, and not as a reward for thrift and saving. if the principle is adopted of granting additional poor relief to members of friendly societies as a statutory right, the claims of other persons who have been thrifty besides those who belong to a friendly society can hardly be resisted, and such a far-reaching principle should not be accepted in regard to only one body of men, such as members of friendly societies, without a full investigation of the whole subject, and without regard to the extension of the principle in the future. In the circumstances I hope your Lord ships will decline to allow a measure Of this importance to be forced through Parliament by means of the suspension of the Standing Orders and without proper inquiry. Seventy years have elapsed since the last inquiry was held into the subject of the Poor Law, and surely it is now time that another was held. At any rate, there should be full inquiry before a measure of this great importance is passed into law.

Amendment moved— To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' for the purpose of inserting the following words, viz., 'this House is of opinion that no alteration should be made in the principles of Poor Law relief as now administered, save on the direct responsibility of the Government and after a full independent public inquiry into the working of the present law; and this House meantime thinks it undesirable to proceed further with this Bill.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

* THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, when this subject was discussed in your Lordships' House a year ago I ventured to express my entire agreement with the noble Earl Lord Northbrook, who then brought the matter forward, in thinking that we were asked to act in a totally inexplicable way in granting preferential treatment to friendly societies over all other forms of thrift. I was told then that it was a pity to show an unkindly spirit towards friendly societies. Nothing could be further from my wish than to do so. I believe in friendly societies with all my heart. I have supported them from the first time that I was able to take part in considering public questions at all, and I believe them to be one of the best means of promoting thrift that the country knows. But I maintain that no explanation has been forthcoming, either by the original promoters of the Bill or by His Majesty's Government, who have now taken it up, for singling out the friendly societies as the one form of thrift to which the Legislature is to grant special benefits and special rewards in the administration of Poor Law relief.

We were told by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that the difference between thrift shown by means of investment in friendly societies and thrift shown in other ways was this, that a man who was thrifty in other ways would get the immediate benefit of his thrift, but that from a friendly society the investor would get no benefit until he fell ill, and that it was therefore a more deliberate and thoughtful course of action, deserving a peculiar encouragement, My Lords, I entirely dispute that proposition—I hold in my hand the Official Post Office Guide issued by the Government. If your Lordships will refer to a copy of it you will find page after page describing how His Majesty's Government allows people to invest in what are called deferred annuities, to take effect when the purchaser is, say, sixty years of age? That is a mode of thrift which, though specially promoted and encouraged by themselves, His Majesty's Government in this Bill totally disregards. A man who buys a Post Office deferred annuity gets no benefit under this Bill, but his brother who has used a friendly society as the medium of his thrift will get the special benefit which this Bill will confer upon him whenever he comes to appeal for Poor Law relief. It is unfair that those who ask for that further information which the Earl of Northbrook has demanded on more than one occasion should be taunted with being unkindly towards friendly societies, because we are simply waiting for an explanation of the differential treatment we are asked to give. I wait still in the expectation that we shall somehow and somewhen be furnished with some explanation why this differential treatment should be asked for by the friendly societies, and why, if it is asked for, it should be granted at the public expense when it is not granted to other forms of thrift quite as praiseworthy and quite as likely, with a fair chance, to be largely and, in the public interest, advantageously adopted.

EARL GREY

My Lords, I think, after the two speeches to which we have listened, independent Members of your Lordships' House cannot fail to arrive at the conclusion that the Government are making a strong demand in asking us to pass a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. I think the House is under a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl. Lord Wemyss, for his public spirit in staying here as he has done, to my personal knowledge at great inconveni- ence to himself, in order to defend principles which are dear to his heart and in order to defend, as he thinks, the dignity of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill contended that inasmuch as the other House had passed this Bill three times without a division, we should not be acting quite in a spirit, of respect towards that House in refusing to consider the Bill on the present occasion. Well, my Lords, I think we have our dignity to consider also. I can recollect a Bill introduced by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack last year which was passed unanimously by this House. It was introduced again this year, and again passed unanimously by your Lordships. The object of that measure was to make an illicit commission a criminal offence. But what has the other House done in regard to that Bill? It has not even had the civility to consider it at all. I do think that if the other House treats with such scant respect Bills which have been introduced into your Lordships' House by the Lord Chancellor, and which your Lordships have passed unanimously on two occasions, they cannot expect us to be very friendly towards Bills which they could have sent up much earlier if they had liked. The statement of Lord Kenyon that this Bill has passed the House of Commons three times without a division shows that they could have sent it up at a very much earlier period. That being so, I wish to associate myself with the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, in his protest against the treatment which has been meted out to this House, and I shall certainly give my vote with the noble Earl if, as I hope he will, he presses his Amendment to a division.

* THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE)

My Lords, whatever may be said about the management of business in the other or in this House, I would remind your Lordships that at an earlier period of the session the Bill which is now before us passed through all its stages up to the Third Reading, and that it would have been passed but for the question raised by the noble and learned Earl on the Wool-sack, that inasmuch as it was concerned. with the rates it was a matter coming within the privilege of the other House. There is, therefore, absolutely no case of indecent haste in regard to this particular Bill. But the Government do not propose to ask your Lordships to carry the Bill further to-day than the Second Reading. My noble friend who spoke last urged that because the House of Commons had failed to find time year after year for very important Bills passed by your Lordships' House, your Lordships might reasonably refuse to pass this measure at this stage of the session. My answer is that two wrongs do not make a right, and because the House of Commons acts in a manner that he deplores, that is no reason why your Lordships' House should act in a manner which you would have good reason afterwards to regret.

The reason for this change of opinion in your Lordships' House is that your Lordships have become more convinced of the intrinsic merits of the Bill and more impressed with the importance of the opinion of the friendly societies. No one would accuse the most rev. Prelate or Earl Grey of indifference to, or want of interest in, the friendly societies. There is no body of men in this country who more deservedly enjoy your Lordships' esteem than the great friendly societies. They are pillars of the Constitution. There is no body of men in this country who make more for thrift and national independence of character and for law and order. My answer to the most rev. Primate is that the Poor Law as administered at present is distinctly hostile to the spread of thrifty ideas in certain respects. Here is one case in which the hostility between the interests of the Poor Law and the interests of thrift can be abrogated.

It is no argument against taking this step to say that there are other steps which might possibly be taken, but are not taken in this Bill. Speaking for myself, I should be glad to join with the most rev. Primate in giving an advantage to other classes of the community who use means of thrift other than that dealt with in this Bill. I knew a ease of a man who had been in my father's employment, and who had for years contributed to one of these friendly societies. He came upon hard times, and he never could understand why he who had been thrifty, and therefore received a small weekly allowance in respect of that thrift. should not be able to get Poor Law relief while his neighbour in the next cottage. who had never put a single halfpenny of his wages into a friendly society, received parish relief without any difficulty. Do your Lordships think that that state of things is calculated to assist thrift? Therefore, my answer to the most rev. Primate is that because more in this direction may possibly have to be done, there is no reason why we should not now do what we can.

I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill, more especially as the principle involved in it has already been admitted. The most rev. Primate's speech would have been greatly to the point ten years ago. Ten years ago your Lordships' House, in conjunction with the other House of Parliament, passed a measure giving discretionary power to boards of guardians to give a man who had contributed to a friendly society the very benefits which are referred to in this Bill. The object of this Bill is to remove the invidious distinction that whereas in one union a member of a friendly society is given the benefit of his thrift, in an adjoining union he is refused that benefit. I would ask your Lordships, Is it an inducement to thrift that such an arbitrary condition of affairs should exist? By this Bill the unequal treatment of two men who are equally deserving will cease, and boards of guardians will be required to administer the law in a fashion that will bear equally on all members of friendly societies who come under the Poor Law. I would say, in reply to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, that there is really no question of an inquiry in this matter. It is not a question of digging up the roots of the settlement of the Poor Law which was arrived at after the inquiry of 1838.

* THE EARL OF WEMYSS

It is the small end of the wedge.

* THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I would remind the noble Earl—the metaphor is somewhat mixed—that you cannot dig up the roots of a system with a small end of the wedge. This Bill is not a commencement of the reversal of that great reform, and your Lordships are as well able to form an opinion on this special point as the members of any Committee would be. The noble Earl is in error in supposing that the Government have not made themselves responsible for this Bill. This is a Government

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Hardwicke, E. Balfour, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Onslow, E. Belper, L.
(L. President.) Selborne, E. Braybrooke, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Ernly, L.
Kenyon, L.
Lansdowne, M. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Ripon, M. Hood, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Hutchinson,V.(E.Donoughmore Lawrence, L.
Clarendon, E. (L.Chamberlain.) St. Oswald, L.
Denbigh, E. Addington, L. Suffield, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch Armstrong, L. Windsor, L.
and Queensberry.) Ashbouner, L. Wolverton, L.
NON-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D. Glenesk, L Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]
Iveagh, L. Wernyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]
Grey, E. Sherborne, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Stalbridge, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.