HL Deb 04 July 1907 vol 177 cc817-30

Order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate on Lord Belper's Amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, viz., that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the said Committee to consider and report whether the cooperation of women in certain matters of local government entrusted to county and borough councils might not be more effectively secured by methods other than that of election by the council as aldermen or by the ratepayers as councillors.

EARL CAWDOR

My Lords, by an unfortunate occurrence in dealing with this Bill on the last occasion I am afraid that most of the noble Lords who sit on this Bench are in the condition of exhausted volcanoes, and they have no further opportunity of addressing your Lordships. Therefore it is that I would ask the House to allow me to say a few words on our present position with regard to the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council moved that the House be put into Committee, and that proposal was followed by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Belper that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Then, following upon that, came a suggestion from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the effect that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to lay before your Lordships' House any information that they had which might be of value if the proceedings on the Bill an the debate that was then proceeding were postponed. Upon that, as your Lordships will remember, the debate was adjourned, and that is the position of affairs we have to meet to-day.

But we now have before us, of course, the Paper which was promised by His Majesty's Government showing, as regards England and Wales, the total number of members of boards of guardians, urban district councils, and rural district councils, and the number who are women, and so forth. I think there was a good deal more that it was suggested we, on this side of the House, would like to have had in the way of information, and I am not able, of course, to say for what reason it was impossible to provide that information. The noble Earl will remember the information that was asked for, and will doubtless be able to explain why more has not been afforded. This is not a very voluminous document to be produced after a fortnight. I should have thought that this information must have been in the pigeonholes of the Department, and could have been produced without delay. But that is a point I do not wish to labour. I accept what we have, and will deal with it as far as I am concerned as it stands. This Paper does give us certain of the facts which my noble friend Lord Belper suggested would best be obtained by dealing with this Bill by a Select Committee in the first instance, but there certainly was a great deal more that my noble friend had in his mind—a great deal more as regards facts even, and certainly a great deal more as regards opinions and evidence. But at the present time we have the facts that are contained in this Paper, and to that extent, and to that extent alone, we have dealt with that part of the question which my noble friend suggested would best be dealt with by a Select Committee. It is quite true that if this Select Committee were now appointed, and were to take evidence and go into the question of the opinions of other persons and of local bodies as to these matters, the inquiries would take some time; and with regard to that I cannot forget the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when we were last discussing this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, after offering any information that His Majesty's Government possessed on the subject, said— I would add that whatever the intention may be—and, of course, I give the credit of good intention to every Member of the House— the result of the Amendment, if carried, would inevitably be to destroy the Bill for this year, and my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, also speaking in that debate, said— It seems to me that if we were to proceed with this matter to-night it is conceivable that that hope [the hope of dealing with this subject during the present session] might be disappointed. Therefore we have from two strong authorities in this House the view expressed that if the Committee proposed to be set up by my noble friend Lord Belper were appointed, the result would probably be to destroy the Bill.

I do not think I am going too far when I say that there is a very general concurrence in the House upon two points— first, that it is very desirable indeed that we should enlist further than we do at present the valuable help and work of women on these local bodies; and, secondly, that it is very desirable that something should be done during this session, and by means of this Bill, in that direction. I think it would be a very deplorable thing if, after the discussions that have taken place here, and in view of that general concurrence, which I do not mean to exaggerate, and I do not think I have exaggerated, we should by the setting up of the Committee destroy this Bill. There is another question which I am bound to say also weighs with me not a little. In the course of the debate on the last occasion the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council said— I think the noble Lord in moving this instruction has come very close indeed to, if he has not overpassed, the line of order. The noble Earl was then speaking with the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I think I shall not be wrong if I say that the noble and learned Earl Lord Halsbury who sits on the Bench behind me holds that view equally, if not even more strongly. I think we should all feel disinclined to proceed on those lines when the view has been expressed by two such high authorities that the action which was then proposed might be trenching upon, if not overpassing, the line of order.

As I have said, I think it would be a great evil if anything that we did in respect to the setting up of a Select Committee destroyed this Bill. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn were correct nearly three weeks ago when they said that our action in setting up this Committee was likely to destroy the Bill, how much more certain is it that such action to-day or next week must imperil the measure? Under these circumstances I venture to suggest to my noble friend Lord Belper that he should consent to withdraw his Amendment, and that your Lordships should agree to go into Committee on the Bill. I believe that is the only way, assuming it to be correct that there is a danger in our setting up a Committee so far as the Bill itself is concerned, in which we can arrive at what I have already pointed out to your Lordships as, in my view, the general desire of the House on this subject.

One thing, of course, may be urged, and it was urged, I think, when we last dealt with this Bill by the noble and learned Lord Lord James of Hereford, namely, that noble Lords who had intended to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill supported the Second Reading on the understanding that there was to be a proposal to set up a Select Committee; and the noble and learned Lord suggested that we should bear that in mind when we came to discuss the matter. I venture to put it to the House that noble Lords who are opposed to this Bill will be in no way injured by the suggestions I have made. Any one who feels strongly in opposition to the Bill can vote against going into Committee, and can afterwards amend the Bill, if it gets into Committee; or on Third Reading, if the Bill is not amended in the direction and to the extent which satisfies him, he can vote for its rejection. Therefore I do not think we can give much heed to the argument that by what is proposed now the position of any one who is really opposed in principle to the Bill as it stands is adversely affected. I trust that my noble friend Lord Belper will consent to withdraw his Amendment. In any case I am afraid that, as far as I personally am concerned, I should have to cast my vote against the proposal for a Select Committee and in favour of going into Committee on the Bill.

It may be said that if we were to go into Committee to-day, noble Lords who have strong feelings as to the desirability of modifying the Bill might be in a difficulty in regard to putting down Amendments, and I would therefore appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider that point, and possibly, if the course I suggest is taken and the House consents to be put into Committee on the Bill, some short adjournment might be made before the actual clauses were taken so as to enable any Amendments that might be put down to receive careful consideration. In conclusion, I have to ask my noble friend Lord Belper to consent to withdraw the Amendment he has placed on the Paper.

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG WORTH

My Lords, as I had not the opportunity of joining in the debate at the previous stage perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words now upon this important subject. The noble Earl who has just sat down made no reference to what perhaps I may be allowed to call the main point of my noble friend Lord Belper's Amendment, which was to ask the House to arrive, if they thought fit, at some other method of electing women to county and borough councils than that of direct election, namely, by co-optation. I am inclined to think that, although there may be some general consensus of opinion that it would be unwise to keep out women altogether from these authorities, it is open to very grave and serious doubt whether it would be advisable to rush into new legislation without very careful consideration on the lines of allowing them to stand and to compete in the same way as men do for seats upon these local authorities.

As we all know, the women who are already co-opted on committees of county councils have done good and useful work. There are several committees which obviously call for the assistance of women, and it would be, perhaps, a drawback not to have their counsel and advice; but that is a very different thing from saying, without very careful consideration indeed, that they should be upon exactly the same footing as men on these local bodies. The matter has received a good deal of attention out of doors. It was discussed some time ago by the council of the County Councils Association, of which I happen to be a member, and although no very definite conclusion was arrived at and there was no direct vote at that time, there certainly was not any general consensus of opinion in favour of admitting women to this qualification without entertaining the idea of co-optation.

Another important point which I think we ought to bear in mind is that as yet we have received no very decided and clear information from the county councils themselves as to what their opinion is on the subject. I believe there has been some difficulty, owing to dates, in the way of their being able to meet and discuss this question upon its merits and arrive at a definite conclusion; but I humbly submit that it would be very unwise to rush legislation through, if I may use the phrase, upon this extremely important subject without consulting the opinions of the very bodies in question. If you are to bring about a drastic reform in these local bodies it sounds to me but commonsense that you should as carefully as possible arrive at the opinions of these bodies themselves.

On the main question I would venture to point out that, supposing women were allowed by some method of co-optation instead of direct election to sit on these bodies, it would have a two-fold advantage. In the first place, you would be much more likely to secure a better class of woman in that way than by direct election, which might open the door to persons who were rather aiming at notoriety and the excitement of an election than to do good work; and, in the second place, it would be much better for women who wish to do this excellent work to be able to have a seat upon these committees and on various portions of the local bodies without having to go through the rough and tumble and turmoil of an election. Therefore, whatever the House may deem fit to do this evening, I would venture to ask your Lordships very seriously to consider this question as to whether it would not be better, if any reform is effected at all, to adopt in some form or other the principle of co-optation instead of resorting to direct election.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)

My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I am entitled to speak in this debate, but it is usual to extend to the Peer who happens to be in charge of a Bill that indulgence to which he is ordinarily entitled, in circumstances such as these. We are very much obliged to the noble Earl opposite for the exceedingly fair and moderate speech in which he has expressed his views on this question, and we sincerely hope that Lord Belper will agree to the suggestion thrown out by the noble Earl and allow the Bill to go to Committee. I may say at once that if that is done we should cheerfully fall in with the further suggestion of the noble Earl that we should not proceed to-day with the clauses of the Bill, because that obviously would be unfair to noble Lords who might desire to put down Amendments; and therefore we shall move that the House be immediately resumed if we are allowed to get the Bill into Committee.

I would only say one word about the Return to which the noble Earl alluded. It is quite true that the time which it has taken to prepare may seem out of proportion to its size, but we were asked to put the whole matter aside for a fortnight, and we thought ourselves bound, therefore, not to proceed with it before the lapse of that time, even though it might have been possible to produce the Paper some few days earlier. It is also quite true that the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, desired that the Return should have been of a more extended character and he was good enough to intimate to the Local Government Board what his views on that point were. I can assure him that my right hon. friend Mr. Burns has been very anxious to meet his views in every possible way, but we have taken up the ground, and it is one to which we are obliged to adhere, that in a matter of this sort it is not of any real service to collect mere evidence of opinion.

I think the noble Marquess suggested that all the chairmen of county councils might have been invited to express their opinion. I do not think that that would have been a very valuable collection of opinions in itself. It might have been of some value if the matter had been brought before each county council and discussed there, in which case I am pretty confident that there would have been a general disposition to support the Bill. But that would have been a matter of months. And I confess that our views of the merits of the case would not be modified by more expression of opinion on the part of chairmen of county councils. The opinions of these gentlemen are, of course, entitled to respect. Some would have gone one way and some another, but I do not think those opinions would have been of material assistance to us in deciding whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with or not. Consequently we have confined ourselves to evidence of fact, upon which noble Lords can, of course, form an analogy, and from which they can draw any conclusion they please. I think it would not be any use for me to attempt an analysis of the Return at this stage. If that is necessary, it can be done on some Amendment in Committee. I therefore merely repeat that I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the suggestion of Lord Cawdor, and in that event I trust there is good prospect of the Bill becoming law during the present session of Parliament.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

My Lords, I regret that I did not hear the statement which was made to the House earlier in this discussion by my noble friend Lord Cawdor. I was detained elsewhere. I wish to say that, as far as I am personally concerned, I do not intend to dwell on the necessity of a Select Committee. I gathered from the speech of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne on the last occasion that the sense of the House was directed against a Select Committee, and I think, therefore, the better course is to accept the line which I understand has been intimated by Lord Cawdor and allow the Bill, with the time for consideration that Lord Crewe has mentioned, to go into Committee. We will watch events in Committee, and those noble Lords who desire to do so can propose Amendments; and on the Third Reading after the Bill has left Committee we shall have an opportunity of saying what we may think appropriate on the Bill.

LORD BELPER

My Lords, I think it is within my privilege to reply on the debate, and it is also due to the House that I should say something upon the present position. I must say I feel very strongly that the House has put itself in an unfortunate position by the course pursued. My noble friend Lord Cawdor has alluded to the very small modicum of information which has been given us by the Government in a Paper with a very large and imposing title-page, and I cannot admit that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has given any answer to that complaint by saying he confined the information to questions of fact. There are questions of fact on which it is exceedingly desirable we should have an authoritative opinion, such as could be given by the Local Government Board, and some of those questions were set out in the Memorandum which was sent in to the Government.

I am rather surprised that the first official copy of this Paper, which is dated 28th June, was sent to me under cover by the President of the Local Government Board yesterday evening—that is to say, on 3rd July. It is perfectly obvious that this information, even if it took nearly a fortnight to collect, could have been printed the day after the date which is placed on the Paper itself; and one would have thought, that when, with the authority of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, we were promised all the information that was available at the Local Government Board, and also the answers to questions which we might like to ask, the information, a small modicum of which is contained in this Paper, would have been placed in your Lordships' hands as soon as possible. Even now the Paper has not been distributed to all your Lordships. I venture to think that if the Government were as anxious as they professed to be to give information they would have taken care that what information they gave should be in the hands of your Lordships at the earliest possible date.

With regard to this Paper, I should like to make one or two remarks. No doubt the information, though small in amount, is very important from a particular point of view. The first part of the statement gives the number of women who have seats upon boards of guardians, rural district councils, and urban district councils. On boards of guardians, as we all believed would be the case, there are a considerable number of women taking a useful part in the work; but when we come to rural district councils the number is very small. Out of a total number of 656 rural district councils, there are only 108 on which women sit; and the total number of women who have seats on these authorities is 146—or something like one in five of the total number of authorities. When we come, however, to the most important of these three authorities—urban district councils—the result is truly surprising, if not almost ludicrous. Urban district councils are the authorities which have to deal with similar work to that of the borough councils; in many cases they are bodies of great importance, representing a very large population, and they discharge those very duties which, in the petition that was sent to the Prime Minister, the ladies expressed themselves as anxious to take part in.

What is the case in regard to urban district councils? Out of a total of 812 throughout the whole of England, there are only two district councils with women representatives upon them, and in each case there is only one woman member. Therefore, in regard to these particular bodies which deal with matters suitable for women to take part in, only two women throughout the whole of England have taken the trouble to seek, or, at all events, have been successful in obtaining, seats on those councils. If any statement were necessary to confirm what I said in moving that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee I do not think there could be any more pregnant statement than that. If we had had a Select Committee we might have discovered the reasons which prevent women securing seats on these councils.

Then there is a statement in regard to the number of women who have seats on the education committees of county and borough councils. That is a piece of information which is strictly bounded by Statute and by the schemes drawn up under the Education Act. What we were anxious to get was, not only the number of women who have, under statutory powers, seats on present education authorities, but what was the number of women who sought and obtained seats on the old school boards, because they wished to take part in educational matters. If we had had that information it would have been some guide as to the keenness which women had shown in attempting to get seats on educational bodies.

I should like to call attention to one piece of information which we asked for, and which the Local Government Board could have given themselves if they had devoted half-an-hour's attention to the matter. The statement has frequently been made that if you co-opt women they have no opportunity of defending before the full council the policy which they advocate if the council takes objection to the work of the committee. I pointed out that as far as county councils were concerned there were only two important committees on which the work of women would be desirable—I was going to say almost necessary. Those two committees are the Health Committee with regard to midwives, and the Asylums Committee with regard to lunatics. I asked for information as to what were the powers of an Asylums Committee with regard to their work compared with those of the other committees appointed by the county councils. I could have answered that question myself. The answer is that the Asylums Committee have almost independent powers. They need not even make a quarterly Report to the county council, the money they spend is within their own control, and the county council have no purview over it, so to speak, except that they elect the members of the committee, and therefore can alter its constitution if they are dissatisfied with the way the work is being done. But, practically, this committee is an independent committee.

What I complain of is that we have no guidance or information from the Local Government Board with regard to these matters. We have a right to expect that the Government, when they bring in a Bill and recommend it to the House, should give us the information which is in their possession as to the facts and the practice of these different committees. If the Local Government Board had given a Memorandum of the kind that was asked for it would have cleaed up these points authoritatively, and thrown some valuable light on many of the remarks which have been made with regard to this Bill. We should have liked very much, as the noble Earl said, to have obtained the opinion of the county councils, but that unfortunately within the time at disposal would have been impossible, because many of the county councils do not meet until late in July; but, tailing that, my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who discussed the matter with me, thought it might throw some light on the question if we could get the opinion of the chairmen of county councils and the chairmen of the education committees, who are probably the two people who can speak with most authority on this matter. I do not wish to labour that point, but I do say that we are somewhat disappointed, after we had adjourned the debate owing to an offer that was made by the Government that they would give us all the information at their disposal, that no attempt should have been made to give us information. which was available at the Local Government Board and which would have been of great assistance to us in coming to a decision on many of the subjects which have been discussed.

It has been said that the appointment of a Select Committee would kill the Bill. It could only be killed if the Government withdrew the Bill in consequence of its being referred to a Select Committee, or in consequence of their not being satisfied with the decision to which the Committee came; but, as far as I was concerned, I certainly had no intention or wish, in moving for this Committee, to kill the Bill. My object was to get the necessary information and evidence to enable the House to come to a right decision on the question. I pointed out that in my opinion there were other ways in which we might secure the valuable assistance of women on these bodies, and that very few of the ladies whose services we wished to have would take part in contested elections. Whatever decision the Committee might have come to on the facts before them, I should have been perfectly willing to accept that decision whether it had been in favour of the Bill or in favour of the course I suggested.

It only remains for me now to state the view I take of our present position. Unsatisfactory as, in my opinion, has been the course pursued—and I am sure it will not be adopted as a precedent in the future—I recognise that the position is very different to-day from what it was three weeks ago. I am very much inclined to agree with a large part of what my noble friend Lord Cawdor said, and it was not even necessary that I should listen to his remarks to feel that if we pressed the Amendment referring the Bill to a Select Committee, we should be laying ourselves open to the charge of wishing to kill the Bill. I still feel that the appointment of a Committee would have been the best course to pursue. I believe that in that way we should have got at what we wanted—namely, the real facts of the case. But under the present circumstances, and knowing what the general feeling of the House is upon the matter, I think it will be meeting the views of your Lordships if I withdraw the Amendment, which I now beg to do.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

House in Committee (according to Order.)

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

THE EARL OF CREWE

I beg to move that the House do resume.

Moved, "That the House do resume." —(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.