POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 14 May 1924)

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE
My Lords, I am very sorry to find myself in the position of moving the Second Reading of a Bill the day after it has been introduced in this House. There is no member of this House who feels more strongly than I do the disadvantage of this House being in any way curtailed in the time it has for dealing with legislation. But we are in this difficulty. The object of the Bill is to carry on the provisions of a measure which comes to an end to-morrow, and therefore steps of an emergency kind have to be taken to deal with the matter. The noble Marquess opposite indicated yesterday that he would expect to hear some reason why the Bill is presented here so late. It is contrary to the Orders of this House to criticise what takes place in another place, but in this instance there certainly was nothing in the way of rushing the Bill through in the other Mouse. It was introduced in March, and it received a Second Reading on April 10, which gave plenty of opportunity not only for the discussion in that House but for sending it here in time. For one thing, the Recess intervened, and there was also a little delay in setting up the Scottish Committee in the House of Commons, and the time slipped away without being sufficiently noticed. Thus the Bill arrived here at too short a time in my opinion before it has to be carried into operation. There is one little point which may have escaped your Lordships' notice, and that is that this House docs not sit on Mondays. The Bill passed the Commons on Monday and might have been here the same day. We should then have had three full days and one over in order 438 to get it through. That was a misfortune for which the Government are not to blame.
The Bill is a very short one, and it is quite unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the legislation. It is legislation which was brought in by the penultimate Government, and carried on by the late Government. All that the Bill does, with the exception of one little point, is to carry on the provisions of the existing Act until May 16, 1925. The reason for the Bill is to introduce into Scotland what is the law of England—namely, that poor relief can be given to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment. The reason for the legislation which was enacted in 1921 was the state of unemployment in Scotland. There has been, your Lordships will be glad to know, in the last few months some mitigation of the distress arising from unemployment in Scotland, but it is still on so great a scale that undoubtedly the House could not hesitate to answer the call of the Government that for another twelve months this power of giving relief should continue. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into figures on this subject. The state of things in Scotland is notorious, and I cannot imagine that this House would wish that the Bill should not pass.
There is one small addition to the present provisions which gives power to the parish council to make allowances, not for the purpose of direct relief, but as an assistance towards emigration. That is put in perfectly general terms, although one knows that there is a strong feeling in many quarters that assistance of emigration ought to be directed to assisting emigration to our own Colonies and Dominions. The Government have not thought proper to put it in that limited form here, but I am in a position to state that their proposal is to communicate with the parish councils and to exhort them in the administration of this matter to keep themselves in the closest touch with the body which is called, I think, the Oversea Settlement Committee, a Committee which deals with the question of assisting emigration to the Colonies and the Dominions. I do not think I have anything else to say on the subject of this Bill, except that I hope the House will put us in the position of being able to pass it to-morrow.

§ THE EARL OF BALFOUR
My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not wish in the least to object to any continuance Bill which the Government deem to be necessary and desirable, but do I understand the last part of the noble Lord's speech to mean that there is to be public assistance to Scotland under this Bill while there is no corresponding provision in the Act applying to England? I dare say that I only show my own ignorance in asking this, but I should be glad of the information if my noble friend can give it me.

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE
I am sorry that I did not mention the point. I ought to have said that power already exists in England, and it is only proposed to extend that power to Scotland.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to myself and to what passed in conversation yesterday, may I say that I think—as he knows very well—that it is a very objectionable practice if business is brought before your Lordships' House at such a late moment as to render it quite impossible to give due deliberation to any measure. This is a Bill which it is necessary to pass, because it is a continuance Bill, renewing an Act which, I understand, expires to-morrow. It must, of course, go through. I asked the Government yesterday what was the reason why it has been introduced here so late. I know that the noble Lord agrees with me on this subject, and he has been very candid, for he has told year Lordships that there is no reason why it has been introduced here so late. It is not a controversial Bill, and I understand that there was no difficulty in getting it through the House of Commons. On the contrary, it was more or less an agreed Bill, and I hope that it will not be thought that I am using an offensive word if I say that it was mere mismanagement that the Bill was not passed through the House of Commons in sufficient time to give your Lordships an opportunity of considering it.
But it is no use crying over spilt milk. We do not wish to stop this Bill, and would not do so, even if we had time to discuss it. In the circumstances there is nothing to be done, but I think (if the noble Lord will allow me to put it in that way) that it is his duty to represent to 440 those who are in charge in another place that it is not fair to treat your Lordships in this way. Were this a Bill which was likely to be controversial a real difficulty might arise. I think it would be much wiser if Bills were passed through the House of Commons in sufficient time. I do not know whether the noble Lord would pardon me if I went so far as to mention what we considered the proper practice when we sat on the Bench opposite. Roughly speaking, it was that there should be at least a week's interval between the different stages of a Bill, and, of course, more if necessary. That appears to be a normal and proper period of time. I do not know whether the noble Lord and his colleagues will see fit to carry on the same practice. I hope they will, and, if they do not, I hope that your Lordships will take steps to secure that they do.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I quite agree with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess. There ought to be adequate time for Bills to be put down in your Lordships' House, but the House of Commons is rather like a street down which a stream of motor cars is passing, and my noble friend's little motor ear got blocked in the street and could not get here in time. It was not his fault, and I think that the Government are quite aware of the disadvantages of its delay. I was going to suggest—since the noble Marquess has been good enough to say that he will make no difficulty about the Bill going through—that the most convenient course will be for my noble friend to put down Notice of Motion to suspend the Standing Order to-morrow, and also that this Bill should take precedence of other Orders. It will not take a moment, and the Bill at present standing first on the Order Paper may occupy your Lordships fill pretty late in the evening. We have communicated with the other House, and I think that half-past six will be a convenient hour for the "Royal Commission. We might adjourn the discussion of other matters to take the Royal Commission, and resume, the debate afterwards.