§
1.—(1) The National Assistance Board may join with any plaintiff (hereinafter called "the other plaintiff) in any proceedings whose purpose, or part of whose purpose, is the recovery or obtaining of any sum or sums of money the equivalent of which or of part of which the Board thinks itself likely, if such proceedings were not brought, to have to pay to the other plaintiff; and in particular may join as aforesaid with a mother in bringing affiliation proceedings.
(3) In any case in which such a direction as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection 1s in force, the Board may pay to the other plaintiff such sums as are ordered by the judgment to be paid to the Board, whether or not such payments are actually made to the Board.
§
DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to omit "any plaintiff (hereinafter called ' the other plaintiff') in any" and to insert instead:
a mother (hereinafter called the other plaintiff) in any affiliation".
§ The noble Lord said: If your Lordships are willing, I propose to take the first and second Amendments together. The effect of the first Amendment would be to limit the provisions of the Bill to mothers of illegitimate children. The second Amendment would go further, and would include also deserted married women and any other case that falls under Section 42 of the National Assistance Act which provides for the maintenance of those for whom there is an obligation to maintain. In my personal view, the deserted married woman is at least as deserving a case, if not more so, and often in fact a more needy one because she may well have more children to look after. A woman who has several 1248 children and who is separated from her husband may not be able to earn enough to keep them all and may be far more dependent on the money she gets from her husband than an unmarried mother may be. For that reason my own preference would be for the second Amendment.
§
When I drafted these Amendments I had in mind the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made on Second Reading, almost all of which was devoted to the unmarried mother; but then on re-reading it I found she said these words:
The purpose of this Bill is to enable the National Assistance Board, where it thinks fit, and only where it thinks fit, to underwrite the affiliation or maintenance order of the unmarried mother, or the separated or divorced wife and her child, or children, as the case may be, at the time the order is made."—Vol. 263 (No. 41), col. 618. February 18, 1965.]
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("money") insert ("which are claimed from any person in respect of his liability under section 42 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
SUMMERSKILLI gather from what the noble Lord has said that he is prepared to support the claims of the unmarried mother and the divorced and separated wife and their children, but of course what he is anxious to do is to limit it to this case and not to include the other powers which he mentions the Bill would cover if perhaps somebody thought she would use it in these different ways. The noble Lord will recall that I said I would move an Amendment which included the Statutes I had in mind, and he will see that a subsequent Amendment covers this.
I had no ulterior motive in leaving the Bill in the form in which it stood and I do not wish to amend it now, for this reason. I was advised that perhaps in the future the National Assistance Board might be giving assistance to somebody who became involved in litigation in a case such as a running down case, which 1249 the noble Lord and my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, mentioned in winding-up the debate. Is there any harm in giving the National Assistance Board these powers? Perhaps in the future the National Assistance Board may think, as they are helping an individual who needs help very much in order to pursue what the Board feels is a just claim against somebody, that it would be advisable to join that person in the claim. So I would ask the noble Lord to have some sympathy in this case. It could be, of course, amended on the Report stage so that these powers were omitted, but I am advised that it does no harm to leave the other powers in, and indeed the National Assistance Board at some future time may be grateful for them. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
DRUMALBYNFor my part, I should rather like to hear what the Government have to say on this point before making up my mind on it. I quite see that it is possible that a case of this sort might arise. Normally the cases are so different in character, particularly in this respect, that when we are dealing with court orders under Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act, or affiliation proceedings and the like, they are framed in the form of weekly payments, whereas I take it that compensation in other cases is in a lump sum. They are so different in character that I will say to the noble Lady that if I were to withdraw my Amendment at this stage I should like her to consider the matter further to see whether it is not wise to take one step at a time, and to take a step which is clearly defined and is not likely to be confused with other types of payment.
MITCHISONI would only say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lady Summerskill that I expressed my views and those of the Government fully on Second Reading. The House came to a contrary decision, and I think it would be inappropriate for me or the Government now to express any view in subsequent stages of the Bill. Therefore, I do not propose to do so.
SUMMERSKILLMay I say that I will certainly consider this if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will leave the wording as it is now. If I think that it should be amended further along 1250 the lines he suggested, we could do it on Report stage.
DRUMALBYNI am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I must say I think the attitude of the Government on this matter is a rather extraordinary one. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, what he is virtually saying is this: "We have opposed this Bill in the first stage and we shall go on opposing it throughout, and therefore it is hardly worth discussing the matter now". That seems to be the only possible interpretation of his remarks. I have not been very long in your Lordships' House, but I have not come across that attitude before. However, if that is the attitude of the Government it is a little difficult to make up one's mind on the various Amendments that are proposed.
MITCHISONI only rose out of courtesy to the noble Lord and I can only repeat that I have fully expressed my views, and those of the Government, at Second Reading and I have nothing to add at this stage.
DRUMALBYNI take it your Lordships can only take note of that statement, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SUMMERSKILLIt will be recalled that on Second Reading I said that I would amend the Bill in such a way that it would include all the Statutes that I had in mind when the Bill was drafted, and this Amendment fulfils that promise. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1. line 11, leave out from ("plaintiff") to end of line 12 and insert—
(" () Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Board may in particular join with the other plaintiff in proceedings brought under—
DRUMALBYNMay I make one observation? That is that the Acts cited do not appear to apply to Scotland. I think if the noble Lady wants to carry this further she will have to inquire what are the relevant Parliamentary Acts in Scotland and incorporate those.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 9.2 p.m.
SUMMERSKILLThe Committee will recall that on Second Reading I said that I thought the Assistance Board would find it easier to administer the proposals in this Bill if the Board were notified when proceedings were pending. I think the noble Lord agreed that this would be highly desirable, and this Amendment covers the proposal I then made. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
(" () It shall be the duty of any court in which any proceedings mentioned in the foregoing subsection have been initiated to bring such proceedings to the notice of the Board.")—(Baroness Summerskill.)
COLVILLE CULROSSI would add only one thing in view of the attitude taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. When he came to this part of his speech on the Second Reading and referring to this explicit point, he said, if I remember his words aright, "I am sure I do not know what the Home Office would have to say about this". The noble Lord said this evening that he has expressed the Government's view in full upon every aspect of this Bill. Quite clearly, upon this particular aspect he did not express the Government's view, and therefore I do not know whether he would tell us what the Home Office do think.
MITCHISONI always rise to this bait. I rise in courtesy to noble Lords, and I hope and believe that the courtesy will be reciprocal. I have nothing to add to what I said on Second Reading.
IDDESLEIGHI feel a little puzzled. I supported Her Majesty's Government on Second Reading. I always like to support Her Majesty's Government if I can, whatever that Government may be. We were defeated, Her Majesty's Government and I. We have this Bill on our hands. Now we are having a Committee stage which involves a great many technically difficult points on which I, a non-expert, may have to vote. I feel that I am entitled to the guidance and help of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I feel this attitude deplorably reminiscent of Achilles sulking in his tent.
MITCHISONMay I remind my noble friend that Achilles sulked in his tent before a successful battle? This Bill has yet to go to another place. While it remains here, I have nothing to add to what I said on Second Reading.
DRUMALBYNI hope the noble Lord will be careful of his heel in this matter. I always raise points of drafting with the greatest diffidence, but there are two points here. One is a question of the intention of the noble Baroness, and the other is really a question of drafting. She has made it clear that she expects the notice to be given to the other plaintiff while the proceedings are pending. With all respect, I do not think that is quite what the words before us say; and, so far as I can see, it would be possible for notice to be given either before or after the proceedings. I may be wrong about that.
What I think is of rather more substance is this. Supposing the Board were to receive notice before the proceedings, I take it that she envisages that the Board would then get in touch with the other plaintiff, before the proceedings, to find out whether the other plaintiff in fact wanted the Board to be joined with her. It is not said anywhere in the Bill, but I take it that it is not her intention that the Board should join with the other plaintiff if the other plaintiff did not want them to be joined. I wonder if it would not be desirable, when the noble Baroness is considering this matter at the next stage, if that is her intention, to make that point quite clear in the Bill. Otherwise the Board might decide it was in their interest to join, whether the other plaintiff wished it or not. I say this 1253 because, of course, as I pointed out at the earlier stage in the Bill, Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act seemed to me to be devised primarily to protect the Exchequer, and therefore the National Assistance Board very often will bring the proceedings in lieu of what is here called "the other plaintiff" in order to protect the Exchequer—in order, that is, to ensure that the monies they will have to pay in any case to the plaintiff can be recovered by the Board. That being the case, the initiative obviously lies with the Board. But if it is her intention that the Board should not be joined unless the other plaintiff so wishes, then I think, with respect, she ought to express it in the Bill.
SUMMERSKILLI am quite prepared to clarify this matter. The essential part about this Bill is that it is not mandatory. All this is done within the discretion of the Board, and obviously if they meet a woman who says "I wish you to take no action at all" they will accept that, because it is a permissive Bill. If the noble Lord thinks it is not quite clear I shall be only too happy to redraft it in a way of which he will approve on the Report stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "pay to the other plaintiff such sums as are ordered by the judgment" and to insert instead:
make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be made".
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment and the next (for which this is a paving Amendment) is to ensure that the Board will not pay out more in the form of assistance to the other plaintiff than they received, where that excess would be more than they were entitled to pay under the National Assistance Act itself. I think that this is right. I think it would establish a remarkable principle if we were to say that the Exchequer—for this is what it amounts to—was to underwrite a failure on the part of the person responsible for the maintenance of a deserted wife or payments for an illegitimate child, to make those payments.
§ I think that what the noble Lady has in mind is largely that the amounts which the court may order to be paid would be in excess of the amounts which the National Assistance Board would be 1254 entitled to pay in accordance with their scales, plus, of course, the rent payments and the like. There is obviously no reason why they should not collect those payments and pass them on. Indeed, I understand that they do so at the present time where the whole of the payments are made to the Board, although in some cases the payments may be made in part to the Board and in part directly to the other plaintiff. I go on saying "the other plaintiff" for reasons of brevity. But where those payments are not made, and in those cases where they would be in excess of what the Board are entitled to pay under the National Assistance Act, I do not think it would be in any way right that the Board should make those payments—that is to say, payments which are in excess of what they are entitled to make in accordance with their scales.
§ It is perfectly right—and of course they would in any case do it—to make the payments that they are empowered to make in accordance with their scales; but to pay more would seem to me to introduce an entirely new principle, and one which I think ought to be much more closely explored than it was in the course of the Second Reading debate. For that reason, I think that where a person who is obliged to maintain fails to make the payments at all, the right course is to limit the payments to the amounts that the Board are entitled to make under the 1948 Act. I am sorry that this is rather complicated to express, but I hope I have made it plain. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("may") to ("to") in line 21 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
§ 9.10 p.m.
SUMMERSKILLI fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. Of course, we are dealing now with administrative details. May I tell the noble Lord what social workers have told me about the position to-day? For instance, if a man observes the order and pays in full an amount which is higher than the National Assistance scales, that can be paid to the Board and they will pay that higher amount. The noble Lord is now saying that in the event of the man's failing to pay, the woman must return to the National Assistance scales.
I would put this point to him. Just for the sake of argument, let us say that 1255 the man concerned is a tic-tac man. I take such an illustration for reasons which will be obvious later. He is a rather irresponsible person who pays for the first few weeks and then fails to pay. During the first few weeks the woman gets the full amount, but then she gets only the National Assistance scale. Then the Derby comes along and the man makes a large sum of money. He says, "I have treated this girl badly and I must make some redress." So he takes £50 or £60 from the sum of money he may have made—who knows, it may be a few hundred pounds—and pays out a lump sum to the Board. I am told that at the end of the year, or within a few months, the girl may get this extra money as a bonus. I am wondering whether the noble Lord's Amendments will permit this practice to continue. His Amendment reads
make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be madeandthe Board shall not pay the other plaintiff more than they are empowered to pay in accordance with the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948.It is only a matter of administration. If the noble Lord can assure me that by amending it in such a way, that is to say,make to the other plaintiff such weekly payments as are ordered to be madestill allows this practice of giving the girl a bonus or lump sum at any time, I am quite prepared to accept it. This is pure administration. I think that the way this provision is administered now is excellent, and I should like it to continue.
DRUMALBYNWhen the noble Lady started, I thought she meant that the question whether the Exchequer should pay more than the 1948 Act permits was only a matter of minor administrative detail; but it seems to me to be a matter of rather major principle. From what she then said, it appears that she accepts that they should not pay more in the circumstances which I envisage. I am not absolutely certain whether my Amendment as drafted would permit of back payments being made by the Board (there was not any intention to stop that) where the amount is paid retrospectively. Obviously they 1256 would recoup themselves first for the back payments, and then anything over would be paid, as is done at present, in the form, as it were, of a bonus. It would in fact be the excess over the National Assistance payments which was still due. I should not have thought this Amendment prevented that from being done, but I shall certainly have another look at it to see whether or not it would. If the noble Lady would prefer me to withdraw the Amendment and to have another look at it, I will do so. If she prefers to accept it now, we can have another look at it together.
COLVILLE CULROSSIf I may add one point, I am a little worried about the major point of principle to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has drawn attention. As I understood the Bill in its original form, it seemed to me that it would have been possible for the National Assistance Board, under the then drafting, to depart in two ways from the principle of the National Assistance Act, 1948. In the first place, they would have been able, at their discretion, to pay more than the scale to a woman as a result of the court's ordering that a certain sum should be paid to them in turn, but despite the fact that it was not paid by the man who was required by the court to pay it. That was the first principle. The second principle which I thought was embodied in the Bill was that the Board would be entitled to pay that money to the woman at their discretion, whether or not she was in full-time employment.
I should imagine that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would object to both of those principles. He has not at the moment said—and I do not know whether or not it is the case—that he envisages the situation being simply that the same system as is now in operation would go on: that the woman would get her money from the National Assistance Board only if she was not in full-time employment, and that even if she did get that money she would then get only so much of the bonuses as might be paid in. Therefore, both the principles which I thought were in the Bill seem to have been abandoned, and the noble Lady seems content that they should be so abandoned. In case this is ever followed up later, I should be grateful if the noble Lady could give her view on both those subjects. Perhaps 1257 it is also relevant to the next Amendment which stands in her name.
SUMMERSKILLThe noble Viscount knows that if I could have persuaded the Board to pay the full amount of the order to a woman, irrespective of the amount, although it is much more than the Assistance rate, I should have been only too pleased. But I know the world I am dealing with very well, and to me it seemed impracticable in a case such as that of a tic-tac man. At the time when the order is made he may appear to be very prosperous and the court may decide that he could pay her, say, for the sake of argument, £15 a week. But if the amount is paid for two weeks, and he then disappears, according to what the noble Lord has said, and according to what might be ideal, the Board would be expected to continue that £15 a week irrespective of the fact that they could not find him or get a return. Then, let us say that next door in a block of flats there is another woman who is separated, and whose maintenance has been fixed at a little above the National Assistance Rate, but where, again, the man has disappeared. It seemed to me grossly unfair that one woman should be getting £15 a week from the National Assistance Board, while the woman next door was getting only just above the National Assistance rate.
I am fully aware that in introducing legislation there is one principle which must always be observed, and that is that it must be enforceable. Legislation is not good legislation if it cannot be applied to the circumstances which are envisaged, and I thought that conditions of that kind were something which the public could not accept. Therefore, I am quite prepared at this stage to get some bite of the cherry but not all of it. If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment we can discuss it together.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
1258§ 9.22 p.m.
§ SUMMERSKILL moved, after Clause 1, to insert as a new clause:
§ Payments for children of persons fully employed 1948, c. 29
§
. Notwithstanding anything in section 9 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (which prohibits the Board from paying assistance grants to persons in full-time employment) section 1 of this Act shall apply to any case in which the other plaintiff is in full-time employment, with the substitution, in subsection (1) of the said section 1, for the words 'the equivalent of which or of part of which the Board thinks itself likely, if such proceedings were not brought, to have to pay to the other plaintiff' of the words ' for the support of any child affected by any such proceeding as is mentioned in the next following subsection'.
§ The noble Baroness said: I have dared to put a new clause down on the Order Paper for this reason. It seemed to me during the Second Reading of the Bill that the whole House was sympathetic with the lot of the child. Noble Lords may not necessarily have been sympathetic with the lot of the unmarried mother, the divorced wife or the separated wife, but I think there was no doubt that (he whole House felt that the child, whatever its background, should be cared for.
§ The position to-day, in the case of the unmarried mother, is that if she has a full-time job (and I would remind your Lordships that women's jobs are not very well paid, whatever they may be), and the affiliation order which she has had made in her favour is not honoured, she finds herself having to support two, herself and her child, on the one wage. When the affiliation order was being honoured she managed. For herself and her baby she had her wage and the amount which she obtained from the affiliation order—and I would remind your Lordships that the maximum amount is £2 10s. But if the affiliation order is no longer observed by the man, the girl is left with a small wage for two. She knows that if she goes to the National Assistance Board she can get more for herself and her child than she is earning. Therefore, her advisers and friends say, "Go to the National Assistance Board".
§ But in order to get that adequate sum she has to give up her full-time job. This seems to me quite stupid, and not in the interests of the community; because, having given up her full-time job, she 1259 then has to establish her right to National Assistance. This takes time but, finally, she gets her National Assistance for herself and her child. Then she says to herself, "Why trouble to go back to a full time job? I will stay on National Assistance indefinitely. Why trouble to get another job?" But if she had tried she might have got a job at a rate of pay higher than the amount that she was getting from the National Assistance Board. But our rules and regulations say to her, "No, you can sit back and take National Assistance. Do not trouble." That seems to me rather absurd.
§ I am not asking that this woman should be given National Assistance for herself and her child in addition to the wages she is earning. What I am asking is that we should allow her to keep her full-time job but that the National Assistance Board should pay her so much for the child. In the end, of course, this would certainly be in the interests of the Treasury, because this would encourage the woman to work in her own job for herself, though at the same time her wage would be supplemented by the amount of the Assistance Board scale. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
DRUMALBYNI think the noble Lady has made her intention quite clear, although I am not absolutely certain on one point. Her last words were that the National Assistance Board would pay the amount of the National Assistance Board scale for the child; but, if the court order was lower than that, I take it that the amount the National Assistance Board would then pay would be the court order and not the National Assistance Board scale.
DRUMALBYNThere is a very difficult question of principle here, and I should have thought that the better way to deal with this would be to get the Board to make regulations to cover the point. Under Section 5 of the National Assistance Act, the Board are empowered to make different provisions for different classes of persons. This is 1260 the section which deals with the scales for the assessment of need. If the Board find or believe that there is a real need for this, then I should have thought that the correct course would be for them to make regulations to meet that need, treating mothers of illegitimate children, or the illegitimate children themselves, as special cases.
At the moment I believe the only cases that are treated specially are those of blind and tuberculous persons. These, again, are cases where needs are assessed differently. But at the present time it seems quite clear under Section 9 that a person who is in full-time employment cannot get assistance from the Board; and the noble Lady says, as I understand the Amendment, that, notwithstanding anything in that section, the illegitimate child is to get the amount of the court order.
DRUMALBYNAgain, this is in a sense rather odd, because the court order, I understand, is assessed not only in relation to the applicant's need but also in relation to what the defendant is able to pay. So that there is here a departure from uniformity in the assessment of need. It means, in a sense, that the National Assistance Board will be making discretionary payments of varying amounts not related to need but related to the court order. I think this is a difficult question of principle. I personally consider that the House has expressed its view on the general principle here, and that this was an essential part of it; but I am bound to express my view once again that I do not think this is the right way to do it.
COLVILLE CULROSSI hope that the noble Lady will not take the course my noble friend has suggested, because I cannot conceive that the National Assistance Board have powers under Section 5 of the 1948 Act to make regulations which would allow the Board to pay any sum to anybody who was in full-time employment—because, if they did so, it would be in direct contravention of the provisions of Section 9.
As I understand the noble Lady's new clause, the Board, despite the anomalies which would occur, and which my noble friend has pointed out, would be able, for the very good reason, with which I 1261 heartily agree, given by the noble Lady, to depart from the restriction in Section 9 of the 1948 Act. They would be able to give that little boost to the mother's earnings which would enable her to stay independent and keep her child and not to fall a complete charge on the community and on the Treasury. I do not believe this could be done under the 1948 Act; and, as I understand it, it is the essence of the noble Lady's Amendment that there should be a new departure from the principles of this Act. I believe that this House has already agreed that this is so; and I hope the noble Lady will persevere with her Amendment, which I heartily support.
IDDESLEIGHMay I point out another complexity which has not been mentioned? Under the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act, a children's committee is entitled to spend public money to keep a family together. It is not only a question of what the National Assistance Board does or what the woman earns. The question comes up at the case committee of a children's committee as to whether it is worth our while—we have the power to do it—to pay money to the mother in order that she may keep her child with her; and that introduces another complexity into the question. I am beginning to feel that there is a great deal to be said for the Longford Report, which proposes that there should be a Family Service devoted entirely to the welfare of the family. I use this opportunity to call attention to that great need. I am quite at sea with the modern 1963 Act casework. I never know whether I am doing the work of a children's committee or a National Assistance Committee or what. I think 1262 the sooner the whole thing is thought out and clarified, the better.
SUMMERSKILLMay I make a final point to the noble Lord? He said it would be rather curious that the amount we shall be giving to the unmarried mother may vary, because the amount depends on the father's income and the amount which the court originally ordered. She had managed with that amount. If you are earning only £7 or £8 a week the extra £1 or 25s. (and the maximum is £2 10s.) means a great deal. I do not think we can argue, therefore, that the amount which a woman might have would vary. My point is that in order to get the National Assistance grant she has been compelled to give up her job; and if we can so arrange matters that she can keep her job and, by so doing, help to keep herself and her child, with the little extra help for the child which the National Assistance Board gives her, I think it would be socially desirable, not to mention very much in the interests of the Treasury; and I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.