HL Deb 17 May 1926 vol 64 cc206-8

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, this is a Bill to continue an existing arrangement whereby the poorer unions in London are helped by the richer in respect of the relief of the poor. Your Lordships will recollect no doubt that the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was originated in 1867, the system being that an equal rate was paid by each borough to a central Fund, and then claims were made for repayment against this Fund by each borough in accordance with its own particular requirements. If these claims were in excess of the average figure and the Minister of Health passed the accounts after having looked into them, the poorer boroughs obtained payment from the Fund at the expense of the richer up to a certain limit. Until after the War this arrangement was confined to inmates of Poor Law institutions; but the great industrial depression made it necessary to extend its operation to cover out relief as well. This involved legislation, which took the shape of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act of 1921. This Act has twice been extended—in the years 1923 and 1924—arid it is now asked that a further extension should be made until 1928.

It is fully admitted by those responsible for the Bill that the principle of one local authority administering money derived from another is wrong and could never be adopted as a permanency; but for some time past there has been an intention to revise the Poor Law and to bring in a very considerable measure of Poor Law reform which will naturally affect this temporary arrangement. This reform has been considerably delayed by successive changes in Government, but I think I may claim that this Government has a more reasonable chance of being able to redeem its promises than its immediate predecessors and that no fear need be felt on that ground with respect to the declaration made by the Minister last autumn.

The question has been raised a number of times as to the maximum per capita sum that should be chargeable on the Common Fund in regard to this excess relief. Since 1921 the sum has been fixed at 1s. 3d. in respect of the inmates of institutions and at 9d. in respect of outdoor relief. In regard to these sums two deputations have been received by the Minister of Health, one from the receiving unions and the other from the paying unions. Perhaps not altogether unexpectedly, the paying unions protested that the figure of 9d. was too much and the receiving unions protested that it was too little, suggesting 8d. and 1s. respectively as substitutes. I will not argue that the principle of splitting the difference is correct in these circumstances; but I think I can submit, taking the arguments of one side against the other and considering the slightly increased cost of administration of this relief as against the considerable decrease in the cost of living since this proposal was first introduced, that there is no real reason to alter this figure of 9d., which was agreed upon not only by the Conservative Government but by the Labour Government as well when it was in office.

It is not, and never has been, intended that this figure of 9d. should rigidly conform to the exact per capita cost of relief, or to any exact proportion of it, as has been suggested. It is an arbitrary figure, but one which the. Minister has agreed upon, after very careful examination, and after having received various deputations on the subject. He has arrived at that figure as being the most likely to satisfy a. real necessity occasioned by the unequal distribution of the poor in the Metropolis and at the same time to ensure a reasonably economical administration of other people's money. Another part of the Bill refers to the extension to ten years of the period in which local authorities can repay loans made by the central authority. I do not think that this part of the Bill is in the least controversial, so I will not labour it. The Bill has already been through all its stages in another place, and as your Lordships passed what was practically a precisely similar Bill in this House two years ago I hope you will give this measure a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—Viscount Gage.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, if this Bill were being discussed in the abstract the Party which I represent would have a good deal to say about it. No doubt a provision of this kind is needed, but it ought to come in a general measure for the reform of the Poor Law in London. Such a measure was discussed in the time of the Labour Government, and because we could not get any further than, a temporary measure we proposed a temporary measure, and your Lordships gave it to us under restrictions. This is a Bill to remove those restrictions so far as time is concerned and to extend the period. I am willing to be thankful for these mercies, but only on the footing which I gather is the view of the noble Viscount and, indeed, is implied in the Bill, that it is only a temporary measure to tide over the time which must elapse before a general Poor Law Act for London can be passed. I think there is no need to enter upon the proof that such an Act is needed and if, as I gather, the Government really intend to bring it in, I trust that the passing of this Bill will not operate to delay their zeal in setting about the task.

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