HL Deb 09 July 1940 vol 116 cc828-34

5.11 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government to state the total charge to the Exchequer from September, 1939, to June, 1940, for the maintenance of children evacuated from vulnerable to non-vulnerable areas, and what percentage of such charge is borne by the parents of the children evacuated; and move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is, I think, practically self-explanatory; nevertheless it is appropriate that I should give your Lordships some indication of the reasons which prompted me to ask this question. Some months ago I communicated by letter with my right honourable friend the then Minister of Health, and asked him whether His Majesty's Government had any scheme in contemplation by which either the whole or a portion of the expenditure incurred in the maintenance of children evacuated from vulnerable to non-vulnerable areas should be borne by the State, by the parents or by both. In his reply, my right honourable friend assured me that his Department, in consultation with the Treasury, had drawn up some such scheme. My object to-day, therefore, is to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether that scheme is now working, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, and whether it is retrospective from the date of the original evacuation. It would also be of interest to know from the noble Duke who is, I understand, to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government, whether any means test is employed in order to ascertain whether the parents are capable of paying a portion, or the whole, of the cost of the maintenance of their children.

I may add, as I have received a certain number of letters and inquiries as to whether this Motion is concerned with the evacuation of children to British Dominions and Possessions overseas, that that subject is one on which I do not propose to touch. There are many things which I could say strongly deprecating such a course, and no doubt a future opportunity will be given to me to make my beliefs public. The question which I have asked is one to which I believe my noble friend can give a reply in a very few words, and I feel that it cannot cause embarrassment to His Majesty's Government in any possible way.

5.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

My Lords, I am very glad that this question has been raised by the noble Karl, because I feel that there are many people in this country who will be grateful to him for showing that sometimes, when in these stormy days we have a few quiet moments in which we can think, we give attention to these matters. He has struck a note of anxiety which is in many minds today, as to the cost of this huge scheme and whether this scheme, which is absolutely necessary, is being managed with due regard to economy and with a just regard for the incidence of the expenses. I came across a case not long ago where a man in a good position in life gave up that position and became a paid air-raid warden. He then sent his child into the country, evacuating the child himself, and he fully expected to receive the full Government grant towards the maintenance of that child. I think that he did receive it for a time, but subsequently, because he did not get as much as he expected, he brought the child back again. I do not know what has happened to the child now. That goes to show the way in which advantage has been taken of what I will not call Government prodigality, because this is a very difficult time for any Government; but advantage has been taken of this scheme in a way which was probably never intended.

In these days, when we are spending enormous sums of money and when we can scarcely think except in terms of millions, it is most important that we should obtain the best possible results for our money and that we should see that the expense of this scheme is equitably divided between the local authorities, the Government and the parents of the evacuated children. I can assure your Lordships that the County Councils Association, which represents the county councils of this country, has had considerable anxiety about the charges connected with evacuation. As an instance of what is happening, there is a case where a large number of children were sent into a reception area by an evacuating authority and arrived in a disgraceful condition. Their boots were very bad and their clothing was very bad; everything they had wanted mending or replacing. The people in the reception area did what they could out of their own pockets, but it was obviously the duty of the evacuating authority to see that such expense did not fall on the reception area. That is really a question between reception and evacuation areas, but there is still the question to which the noble Earl referred, as to the proportion of the expenditure which should fall upon the parents. It is often said, "Oh, let the Government pay," but in these days, when taxation has reached such heights, I hope that the noble Duke will be able to assure us that as far as possible strict attention will be given to economy so far as this evacuation scheme is concerned.

I should also like to ask whether there is a proper means test, and what is the standard which is used to decide what parents are to contribute towards the cost of maintaining their children. We must always bear in mind that it is probably more expensive for the parent of an evacuated child to keep him away from home, because he will have to maintain a home for himself and his wife and also to keep his child in another part of the country. I am sorry, in a sense, that this matter was not discussed in Secret Session, because it would have been possible to say more had that been the case, and it might have been desirable to discuss the character of vulnerable and non-vulnerable areas. That, of course, cannot be done now; but I know a reception area very well indeed in which large numbers of children have been received but which is now a defence area; and so the children are moved backwards and forwards from one area to another, and this is going to add very considerably to the cost of the evacuation scheme. I hope that I have made my point quite clear to the noble Duke, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this question.

5.20 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, I can answer my noble and gallant friend in a very few words. He asks what the total cost of the evacuation scheme has been to the Exchequer and what proportion is borne by the parents. The cost of billeting alone has been £9,750,000. There has to be added to that various other charges, such as the cost of whole schools and institutions which have had special arrangements made for them, the cost of the care of handicapped and difficult children, such as obstreperous lads, and others of that sort, and that brings the total to £11,200,000. The proportion of this very large sum which it is estimated will be recoverable from parents up to the end of June is £1,390,000, or 12.4 per cent. of the cost to the Exchequer. When parents are in a position to do so it is compulsory for them to pay an appropriate proportion of the cost of billeting their children. My noble friend asked whether it was voluntary or compulsory. It is compulsory by Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Acts. Sums paid by the Ministry in respect of the billeting of children are recoverable summarily as civil debts, and a circular to that effect was issued to all local authorities.

At the same time it was felt that it was not right that the whole cost of billeting should be put on the parents. The cost has gone up, but in the early days of evacuation the cost per child in normal cases was estimated at 9s. a week. It is now, for children of ten and over, 10s. 6d. But 9s. a week was originally fixed as the ordinary figure, and of this it was thought that 6s. a week was the amount which should be payable by the parents, the reason being that in most cases the parent did not escape his liability to rent and rates owing to his family having been evacuated, and that 6s. was the amount which he saved by his child being away. Therefore, while there are parents who pay more than 6s. any parent who pays 6s. is looked upon as fulfilling his full legal responsibility. The figures are rather interesting in a way, in that, while only the comparatively small proportion of 12 per cent. of the total cost is recovered, 53 per cent. of the parents are paying the full 6s. or over, and this affects 45 per cent. of the children. But in many cases it is the very poor, who are not asked to pay, who have the largest families, and that accounts for the fact that although 53 per cent. of the parents pay the full amount, only 12 per cent. of the amount recoverable is recovered.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

IS that 53 per cent. of the children evacuated, or 53 per cent of the parents?

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

It is 53 per cent. of the parents: Then, parents receiving public assistance are not asked to make any payment at all, for the reason that the absence of their children, which affects their means test, diminishes their family income; therefore payment is automatically recovered from them. There is a scale of family means laid down by the Ministry, and when parents consider that they cannot afford to pay 6s. they are asked to give a statement of their net income, and their liability is assessed according to a scale laid down by the Department. In cases where they feel aggrieved or where they disagree with their assessment, they can refer to referees, and some 11,000 cases have been thus referred. I am told that in many cases parents are unpunctual and casual about making these payments but that on the whole, when the local authorities ask for them, they do succeed in recovering the sums due. I am told also that it is reasonable to hope, in view of the rapid diminution in the numbers of the unemployed, that the proportion of parents who pay will probably tend to increase as the number of people on public assistance diminishes. I hope that answer will satisfy my noble friend. I have been able to assure him that payments by parents are compulsory, not voluntary, and that the local authorities have been instructed as from October 28, when payments first began to be made, to recover these payments when they can possibly do so.

5.26 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, it is quite true that the figures that have been given are extremely interesting. From my own knowledge I know that there is a distinct opinion among those on whom children are billeted that the money paid does not necessarily cover all their expenses. Apparently the parents often cannot afford more than they are asked to pay now, a very large number of them apparently cannot afford to pay anything, and the unfortunate taxpayer consequently is saddled with the very large balance. It seems to me that there is a lack of balance about the Government's scheme, a scheme whereby, apparently, everybody loses—not only the persons on whom children are billeted, not only the taxpayer, but also the parents of the children, who apparently are very hard hit. Surely there ought to be some closer investigation into the ability of parents to pay. I know that many of those on whom children are billeted have been rather upset by the fact that the parents come down quite frequently and rather expensively, to see their children in their billets. Surely those people might be expected to pay rather more towards the upkeep of their children and spend less on the pleasure of travelling to see them.

5.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Duke said about the parents who do not pay. In my own house I have 24 children, and the parents who pay nothing at all are under 20 per cent. A certain number pay rather less than 4s. But those who pay nothing at all are not those who come down; they very seldom come down. I think there is little doubt that those who contribute nothing are the very poor ones. I would like to ask the noble Duke to say a word about a matter which I mentioned to him just now: I refer to the complaints that were made six or seven months ago about parents coming down to quite small cottages on the Sundays and expecting a full meal for themselves and their friends. It was mentioned to Mr. Elliot some time ago, and he tried to put a stop to it.

5.29 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, it appears to me that the two noble Lords who have spoken were somewhat out of order, and have extended the Motion to much wider ground than it was meant to cover. While I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire for his statement, I do not consider that it can be regarded in any way as satisfactory by any of your Lordships, or indeed by many people outside. Day by day, week by week, we see taxation continuing to mount to a figure at which it has never stood before, and we are asked to pay a sum of no less than £12,000,000 per annum for the maintenance of children who have been evacuated to these non-vulnerable areas and whose responsibility is really that of nobody else bat their own parents. I cannot help thinking that if the local authorities had not been so dilatory in their methods, and His Majesty's Government had not indulged in so much wishful thinking, a good deal more money could have been obtained from these parents than the sorrowful figure my noble friend has just given. He mentioned that 53 per cent. of the parents were paying 6s. a week or over. I happen to know of two children, young girls, daughters of a London policeman, who up to certainly a month ago had made no contribution whatever to the maintenance of his family in an evacuated area.

I think it would be worth while if His Majesty's Government again examined most carefully and closely to ascertain whether the parents are paying the normal sums which are properly due from them for the maintenance of their children. I might add one word by way of request to the noble Duke, and that is to ask whether he would be kind enough to send me the scale of the means test which the Department have drawn up. At the same time I should like to ask whether he would be good enough, at the end of the twelve months' period, to communicate with me again informing me in his letter whether in the last two months of the twelve, any better figure has been received from the parents of children who have been evacuated. Finally, I would say this, should His Majesty's Government at some time agree to a scheme of evacuation to the Dominions and the Colonies, I trust that the story the noble Duke will have to tell, as regards finance, will be considerably happier than that which he has given to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.