HL Deb 27 May 1924 vol 57 cc663-76

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I think we are agreed in all parts of the, House that the reform of the Poor Law is long overdue, and the Government have actually pledged themselves to introduce reforms in the Poor Law as soon as they possibly can. But there is also equal agreement in this House that the matter is one in regard to which considerable preparation and prolonged discussions are needed before anything can be done, more especially if, as is desired, we are to introduce proposals that will be accorded general acceptance. We, therefore, ask your Lordships to continue for two years those provisions which we have inherited from the last Government, and which the last Government inherited from the Coalition Government.

The provisions of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, fall into two heads. The first concerns London. I think your Lordships will agree that London is faced by certain peculiar difficulties. Unemployment in London is very strongly localised. This was recognised as far back as 1867, when some system of equalisation of rates became necessary. Therefore the Common Poor Fund was established. Under this Common Poor Fund 1s. 3d. per head is allowed for indoor relief and 9d. per head for outdoor relief, and your Lordships will realise that this method of fixing the claim to be made on this fund excludes any question being raised of the particular amounts that particular councils may think fit to pay in relief. The amount per head is quite definitely fixed, so that whatever the authorities pay they cannot get more from the Common Poor Fund than the amount which is laid down. The second set of provisions refers to local authorities generally. It gives them the power of borrowing to meet current expenses. The amount they can borrow is limited to two years' assessable value. The sums that local authorities borrow for purposes of public works in order to relieve unemployment are, however, not affected; they are not counted in this provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has given Notice of a Motion which is tantamount to the rejection of this Bill. I earnestly hope he will not press his Motion to a Division. I ask him to take the word of the Government that they have this matter very deeply at heart, and that it is a question which they intend to press forward with the utmost possible expedition. I ask him also to realise the enormity of the problem, and to give the Government time to bring forward proposals that offer a real solution. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us a description of the Bill, but has not gone fully into it. Your Lordships will realise the reason for this when I explain exactly the object of the measure. It is called the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and was read a second time in the House of Commons on March 2. Apparently no great emergency can have existed, as the Bill has only now come up to your Lordships' House. What does it do? It extends for two years the provisions of the Act which was passed last year. What was the Act which was passed last year? It was to continue, or rather extend, the provisions of the Act passed in 1921 under very special circumstances, which I will explain later. It is, I think, desirable to explain what the first Clause of the present measure does. It allows any board of guardians to give outdoor relief at 1s. 3d. per head per day. But they are also allowed to go further. They are allowed to pay 1s. 3d. per head per day in outdoor relief to farm colonies, such as Hollesley Bay, and the Act still further extends the liabilities on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

There is also a provision which was not in the original emergency Bill. That is a provision to allow a charge to be made on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund for outdoor relief of 9d. per head per day. That is giving to those boards of guardians who receive this 9d. per head per day a very large sum indeed and one quite out of proportion to what is paid in outdoor relief in certain districts. Then there is a provision which enables local authorities to borrow money temporarily for current expenses. This is opening a wide door indeed. The original Act never proposed that they should be allowed to do this. It is now proposed to prolong the Act of 1923 and then at the end of another two years, if the Labour Government is still in power—and the Prime Minister apparently thinks it will be—he will ask for a further extension of these enormous powers of borrowing. It is rather objectionable to introduce these new principles of outdoor relief as a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. It is quite true that many years ago an Act was passed—I think I voted for it—allowing a common charge of 5d. per head to be made, but it was strictly limited with regard to indoor poor, but that is very different from the present proposal. You cannot compare indoor and outdoor relief at all.

It would have been interesting if the noble Earl had told us the origin of the Act of 1921. It was an emergency Bill. What was the emergency? It was the sudden increase of unemployment in Poplar and Bow and Bromley. A heavy charge was thrown on the ratepayers of Poplar, and Mr. Lansbury and his friend" took direct action and refused to pay the London County Council precept. The Government thereupon introduced the emergency Bill of 1921, which was to last for one year only, in order that an opportunity may be given to consider what might happen in the future. In my opinion it was a very dangerous precedent indeed. I notice that in another place the Labour Members made the boast that this was a success for direct action. Certainly it had one very unfortunate effect in that there now exist no safeguards or checks against extravagance. In fact, the present position is a direct incentive to boards of guardians such as those of Poplar, or Bermondsey, or Bow and Bromley to increase the amount of outdoor relief. They naturally choose to give this 9d. per head per day, which amounts in some cases to a very large sum, since it will not fall upon them but upon the London area generally. Their payments in outdoor relief on the ground of unemployment are consequently very heavy.

I should like to ask a question as to what is happening in London with regard to unemployment. One cannot help wondering whether adequate efforts are made to obtain work for unemployed men in other districts as is done in the provinces. In London they appear to fall back upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and throw this heavy expense upon other people's shoulders. It has been stated by the Government in another place that unemployment has decreased very little, if at all, in London, while in the provinces there has been a distinct falling off. I think the reason is fairly obvious. In London a man has no such inducement to try to find work as he has in other districts. What inducement is there for a man to go out and seek work if he is to get the full amount of his wages for doing nothing at all? There is no doubt that this was originally an emergency Act and ought to have come to an end after one year. I am sorry to say that the last Government but one extended it for another two years and now the present Government ask for a further two years, taking us to the end of 1926.

I cannot help thinking that if your Lordships accept this arrangement you will be giving direct encouragement to direct action and to law breaking generally. Surely it is time to deal with unemployment on a national basis. The Labour Government, which were always boasting before the General Election that they were going to deal with unemployment, have never attempted to grapple with the question during the time they have been in power. What did they say before the Election? They issued a manifesto, signed by the Prime Minister and by other members of the Government, though not, I think, by any of the noble Lords sitting on the Government Front, Bench, to the effect that "the Labour Party has a positive remedy for unemployment." And yet they have never attempted to show us what that remedy is.

On January 1 the present Colonial Secretary, speaking to his constituents, said:— We will make a real attempt to substitute work for doles, which have already demoralised our people and caused incalculable harm to the financial stability of the country. I think your Lordships will agree with that statement of the Colonial Secretary. But what has the Labour Government done to carry out that, very reasonable view? They have done nothing whatever, except to introduce this emergency Bill to prolong the present conditions of outdoor relief and to demoralise the people of London. On February 18 the Minister of Labour made the following statement:— The present position is that unemployment of an exceptional kind is facing the country. In the opinion of the Government that unemployment is directly caused by the war and ought to be considered national responsibility. The present position is that the industries bear, roughly, three-quarters of a burden that ought to be purely national. But the Government have produced no proposal for making it national. On the contrary, they propose that London and its unfortunate ratepayers should continue to bear this heavy burden which is to be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

We all know that rates are a very heavy burden upon industries, as the Minister of Labour stated. It has been stated that in some directions the cost in this country of manufactured articles, such as steel rivets, is so enormously increased that it makes it very difficult indeed to contend with competition from abroad in foreign markets. There is no doubt that this system of doles, supplemented by outdoor relief, is simply demoralising and sapping the independence of the people of this country, and the Labour Government, which was so fail of promises and is so lacking in performance, now demands two more years for an emergency measure that once more postpones the solution of this matter. Surely the time has come when we may call upon the Government, instead of asking us for this extension of the operation of an emergency Act, to bring before your Lordships some of their concrete proposals to deal with unemployment. All that the noble Earl has told us in favour of this Bill is that it will give further time to deal with unemployment apart from the Poor Law.

I cannot help feeling that they might have done something more in that direction, because this is a question that has been pretty well agreed upon by all Parties. Your Lordships will remember that a very important Royal Commission, presided over by Lord George Hamilton, adopted a proposal of the County Councils Association, which is certainly not a revolutionary body, laying it down that unemployment relief should be taken out of the Poor Law. That proposal was adopted in both the Majority and Minority Reports of that Royal Commission.

LORD PARMOOR

Is the noble Lord referring to the original Report?

LORD STRACHIE

The, Report of Lord George Hamilton's Commission.

LORD PARMOOR

Is that the original one?

LORD STRACHIE

The Commission re ported in 1911, and, although the members differed on many other points, they were certainly unanimous in the opinion that unemployment should be taken out of the Poor Law. I think that all of' us who happen to be unfortunate ratepayers, either in the country or in London, will agree that it is very desirable that unemployment should be entirely removed from the Poor Law, and that the burden should not fall upon realty as distinct from personal property. It is certainly a national charge and, on those grounds, it seems unreasonable that the Labour Government, who protested that they had a remedy for unemployment, should come now and ask for another two years during which this very heavy charge is still to fall upon the ratepayers of London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—Lord Strachie)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, as my noble friend opposite has said, the genesis of this Bill was the Act of 1921, which I had the privilege of introducing to your Lordships. At that time, which, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, was one of very great unemployment, that Bill was introduced as one of a number of measures to deal with that pressing question. There were three methods by which this matter might have been dealt with. First was the general reform of the Poor Law to which my noble friend has alluded. The second would have been an increase in the equalisation rate of 6d. in the £. The objection to that would have been that it would not have raised enough money for outdoor relief in the poorest districts. The third method was that proposed by the town clerk of West-minster, one of the richest boroughs in the Metropolis, and it is the one which was embodied in the Bill, and generally agreed to by all the Metropolitan Boroughs. One might add that this was entirely a non-Party measure, because it was introduced by the Coalition Government, carried on by a Conservative Government, and now the present Government are carrying out the same policy. The Liberal Party did not introduce it because they did not have the opportunity, but, if they had had that opportunity, I rather venture to think that they might have followed the example of the Prime Minister of the Coalition, who was at that time a member of their Party. But perhaps that is speculation.

There was, and there now is, a fourth remedy for this difficulty, which has been very ably and eloquently stated by my noble friend Lord Strachie. That is to be found in the schemes which the Government are said to have for the relief of unemployment and which we await with such anxiety. When these materialise possibly the necessity for a Bill of this kind may not exist, but they have not yet appeared and therefore, perhaps, the alternative is the one which the noble Earl has put before us to-day. Of course, this Bill differs from the one which I introduced last year, because it extends the operation of the original Act for two years instead of for one year only. I do not want to go at length into the question of the desirability of a general reform of the Poor Law, or whether this is the moment for making it. I would, however, say that if we are going to tackle a big question of that kind the time which must be available for doing so must be practically the whole of the Session. The matter is one of great difficulty and technicality and also of controversy, and I think it would be doubtful, even if the proposals of the Government to deal with the reform of the Poor Law were actually on the Table of this House, whether it would be possible to get them through during the present Session. Therefore I do not see that it is possible to do more than carry out the policy of the last two Governments in this matter by passing this Bill through the House.

I should like, however, to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question with regard to one matter. The original Bill of 1921 was threshed out at a meeting held at the Ministry of Health, and a common agreement was reached. I think the extension of the principle made in the Bill of last year was also done by common agreement. I should like to know whether all the Metropolitan authorities are agreed upon the extension for two years. So far as my recollection goes, when the late Government went out of office we were under the impression that the local authorities had no objection to the extension of two years, but I understand that the position of the local authorities has since been subject to modification, and that interviews have taken place at the Ministry of Health on the subject. Therefore, perhaps, I may be allowed to ask the noble Earl whether the local authorities are entirely agreed upon this measure, or whether some prefer that the Act should not be extended for so long as two years.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Strachie has moved the rejection of the Bill, and if he goes to a Division I shall be very pleased to vote with him. The effect of this Bill is to extend for two years the power of certain people who are by nature, or for some other reason, extravagant, to spend money and then to obtain from other people, who have no power over that expenditure, the money which has been spent. The noble Lord said that the beginning of this Bill was made when there was an extension of the Common Poor Fund. I think he said he voted for it. I spoke and voted against it, and therefore I am not in any way departing from the attitude which I have always taken up. I spoke against it, and I remember that Sir George Bartley also spoke against it. We represented different constituencies in London which would be most affected and would gain most under that Bill, but we were returned at the next Election.

It seems to me an unspeakable proposition that you should allow people to spend other people's money and not give the people whose money is spent any authority over that expenditure. In certain emergencies it may be necessary to do something of that sort, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how long this is going to continue. I can remember that during the war several bad measures were passed, and I was told, when I opposed them: "This is only for the war: do you forget that we are at war?" Nearly all those measures are in existence at the present moment, and this measure, originally passed in 1921, and extended in 1923, is now to be further extended for two years. If His Majesty's Government are in power two years hence, what are they going to do? They do not know. Personally, I think the time has come when we should put a stop to this sort of emergency legislation.

My noble friend Lord Strachie said he did not believe that any of the noble Lords sitting on the Front Government Bench said anything before the Election about the various schemes for unemployment. Of course they did not, because most of them were Conservatives at that time, and could not venture to speak for the Labour Party. I sincerely hope that that which is a very vicious system will be put a stop to now. If you are going to make the Metropolis, as a whole, liable for the expenditure on Poor Law relief, you must have one central authority which not only collects the money but spends it. If you have one central authority composed of all the areas which have to find the money, besides the areas which have to spend it, I do not know that I should have much to say against it, but I repeat that the principle by which you allow a certain area to spend money and compel another area to find the money, is utterly wrong.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

My Lords, I should like to say a word at this stage, as regards this proposed Bill, and first in reference to what Lord Banbury has said, do I understand that he is in favour of the abolition of the Common Poor Fund in London?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

No, I did not say that. I said that if there was to be an extension of the Common Poor Fund, which has been extended lately or was extended in 1921, I was against it, unless there was a central authority which could control the whole thing.

LORD PARMOOR

Then on the first point the noble Lord is in agreement: there must be a Common Poor Fund. When the time comes for a general settlement of the Poor Law question in the Metropolis I shall be glad to be able to quote his opinion, if I have anything to do with the matter, that a central authority is the right authority to deal with all these questions within the Metropolitan area.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If you have a Common Poor Fund.

LORD PARMOOR

I thought the noble Lord said that we must have a Common Poor Fund. He cannot have his negation both ways, and it being necessary that there should be a Common Poor Fund, in his opinion that necessarily implies some central authority. Therefore I need not deal further with the objections which the noble Lord has raised. The Earl of Onslow has, I think, really stated the answer to Lord Strachie. This matter was considered by the late Government. Sir William Joynson-Hicks convened a meeting of various people interested, and I think they were all of one opinion—namely, that there must be an extension Bill. Later, all the authorities—and the noble Earl has referred to this fact—were consulted. There was some difference of opinion as to whether the extension should be for one year or for two years, but when this matter was discussed in another place, so soon as the principle of extension was allowed no one suggested that it would be advisable that the extension should be for one year instead of two years. I dare say the noble Earl has read what passed in another place, when this matter was considered, and I cannot find that this was ever suggested by anyone as an amelioration of the Bill. It was thought that a proposal of this sort had better be extended for two years.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is going to press his Amendment. Certainly that would be inconsistent with the desire of, I believe, "every local authority concerned. It is inconsistent with the opinion of everyone who has had to deal with this question. On general principles I agree with him. I have often said the same myself. I should like a reform of our whole rating system, but at present that is quite outside the sphere of practical politics. What does the noble Lord suggest if this Bill is not given a Second Beading? None of these matters to which he has referred will be ameliorated; on the contrary, they will all really be made worse. I repeat that every Government, every authority who has studied this matter, is of opinion that there must be a temporary extension—that is to say, that this Bill must be read a second time—and the only question is the length of the extension. How far that can be considered at the present time under a privilege Amendment I do not know, but I hope the noble Lord, after this discussion, will withdraw his Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, whatever may be the politics of the Government in power we should always be anxious, if we can do so, to pass a measure which the Government declare to be an emergency measure. So far my sympathies are entirely with the Government in this matter, but I regret the words of the Lord President of the Council. He seemed to shut the door upon what, during the debate, had seemed to me a possible compromise, and that is that we should reduce the period from two years to one when we go into Committee. I have very little hesitation in saying that the question of privilege really would not apply in this particular matter. It does seem rather a strong measure that we should continue until 1926 a Bill which, in 1921, was declared to be a matter of emergency. And there is also this, that if we refused to allow, not only to His Majesty's Government, but also to the Departments concerned, so large an extension as two years, it may prove something of an incentive to them to take up seriously the whole reform of the Poor Law. The noble Earl who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench just now said that his Party might have proposed an identical measure. From my experience, and supposing this had been the particular set of circumstances, I believe the noble Earl would have removed this particular objection to the Bill.

I do not think it is unfair also to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Strachie that in the Bill when last introduced there were certain provisions which were not to be found in the Bill as originally introduced. I regret very much that the Lord President seemed in his remarks to disapprove of the idea of reducing this extension to one year. For my own part, it was in my mind to suggest to my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill that he should withdraw his Amendment and put down in Committee an Amendment reducing the period and making the period of extension one year instead of two years. From the debate which has taken place I cannot help thinking that that course would probably meet with the general approval of your Lordships' House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I really think that the obiter dictum of the Lord President of the Council was a most unfortunate one. He seems to have suggested that it might be breach of privilege if we reduced the currency of this Bill from two years to one year. I really cannot conceive why it should be a breach of privilege. The Bill proposes to make a certain extension of an existing Act of Parliament which, certainly, has to do with rating, but we shall not in any sense violate any privilege, so far as I have learned them since I have been a member of your Lordships' House, by reducing the period. I confess that, if there was any ground for believing that your Lordships would be precluded from carrying such an Amendment, I should be inclined to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think we must not allow ourselves to be placed in such an absurd position as that. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, that there is really no ground of privilege involved at all.

LORD PARMOOR

Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I gather that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that.

LORD PARMOOR

To put matters straight, may I say that I thought it my duty to call the attention of the House to what might be a possible difficulty, but personally I do not believe there would be a breach of privilege.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are the guardians of our own privileges, and it is our duty to see that our privileges are not invaded, just as it is the duty of the House of Commons to see that theirs are not. The humble advice that I should give at all times to your Lordships is that we should adhere to our views where we are quite certain that we are right. But I do not think the question of privilege really arises. What is the actual situation that we have to meet? The Lord President tells us that every local authority whose views he has had the opportunity of learning is agreed that some extension is necessary. I have not access to the official information which is at the command of the noble and learned Lord. But if that is true, it is no doubt a very strong argument which will have great weight with your Lordships, but I do not think it is an argument which would lead to the conclusion that we ought to extend the Bill for two years. For my part, therefore, if the Government would be willing to withdraw the suggestion that they will support the idea that an Amendment of this sort would be a breach of privilege, in that case I should not be prepared to oppose the Second Beading of the Bill. But if we are to be excluded from passing a very obvious and very just Amendment I should be obliged to oppose the Second Reading.

LORD PARMOOR

I do not think the Government would take the view that it is a breach of privilege. The Government desire the two years. I say nothing about that; it would have to be discussed. But, so far as privilege is concerned, it is not a matter for the Government to bring forward; it is entirely a matter for the House of Commons itself.

LORD STRACHIE

I understand that the general feeling of the House is that it is undesirable to go to a Division on the Second Reading, and that, instead, I should give notice of an Amendment to limit this Bill to one year. That being so, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.