BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.

§ Mr. SCURR

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "Where" to insert the words after inquiry by a Select Committee of the Commons House of Parliament. I profoundly disagree with the principle on which this Bill is founded, and think it in every way a bad Bill; and, beyond that, on looking at this Clause 1, find that it proposes to enact that Where it appears to the Minister of Health…that the board of guardians for any Poor Law union have ceased, or are acting in such a manner as will render them unable, to discharge all or any of the functions exercised by the board, the Minister may by Order— do certain things. I do not think the Minister will say I am misrepresenting him when I say that this Bill has been put forward with reference to the alleged default on the part of the West Ham Board of Guardians. That is the real reason for introducing this Bill. We heard what the Minister said on Second Reading regarding the alleged defalcations of that board.

§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)

Not defalcations—default.

§ Mr. SCURR

The alleged default of that board. I understand there are no allegations against the board in regard to their administration of their hospitals or other institutions or their schools. The only point at issue arises over the administration of out-door relief. I have been credibly informed that on previous occasions the West Ham Board of Guardians have endeavoured to meet the Minister on various points of difference which have arisen. I think I am right in saying that he required them to appoint additional officers to investigate the cases of persons receiving relief, and, as a result, some 60 persons were appointed 2292 for the purpose, at a cost to the union of £240 a week. These investigators go all over the union. They are not under the direction of the superintendent relieving officer, they are a quite separate staff, doing separate work, at the request of the Ministry. In that case the board have endeavoured to meet the Ministry.

The position is that there is a dispute between the Minister and the West Ham Board of Guardians—and it may be some other boards of guardians—in regard to administration. It is a case of there being two parties to a dispute, one party making certain allegations, which may or may not be justified, and the other denying those allegations. Under this Bill one of those two parties, the party making the charges, is given power to supersede the persons against whom the charges are brought. That seems to me to be a very bad principle in every sense of the word, to introduce into our legislation—that if a Minister feels that a certain body over which he has certain powers are not discharging their function properly he may supersede them. We say the charges made by the Minister ought to be investigated by an impartial authority, and that it is absolutely wrong that it should be left to those making the charge to decide whether the charge is true or not and then to take action as a result of their decision.

In the Amendment I am putting forward we propose that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should investigate any charges which the Minister deems it to be his duty to make. No one will say that a Select Committee of this House is not an impartial authority. On the Second Reading the Minister of Health put forward certain views about corruption in administration, views as to excessive out-relief and so on. The charges he made were rebutted from this side of the House. The Minister may say that in his judgment they were not sufficiently rebutted. We, on our side, say we do not think the Minister made out his case. If this Bill passes, the Minister has only to say, "In my judgment this board"—any particular board —"is in default, and therefore I will supersede it with my own nominees." Before we invade the province of local government in that way, before we take away from the electors those people whom they have elected to do certain 2293 work in a certain way and who are faithfully carrying out their election pledges, there ought to be an impartial investigation to ascertain whether those persons are discharging the functions they have undertaken in accordance with the law, or whether it is only his political prejudice against them that is causing the Minister to act.

All we can see in the action of the Minister is political prejudice directed against a particular board which, if it had been in some other area, would not have been in such financial difficulties as it is. Moreover, the financial difficulties arise because, in our judgment, the Government of the day have not assumed their rightful responsibility in respect of those people who are out of work. If the Government of the day had a really national system of administering unemployment benefit, and made that unemployment benefit adequate for persons out of work, the West Ham Board of Guardians would not be in their present position, and other boards of guardians, in similarly-situated areas, would also not be in difficulties. Therefore, we had the Minister saying, in effect: "Because there is a board of guardians attempting to do its duty, a duty which has been thrown upon it, because of the default of the Ministry, the Ministry shall have the power to say that that board is in default and is to be relieved of its functions." It is unjust in every sense of the word, and I, therefore, put forward the suggestion that, if we are to have such legislation, and if some board is to be superseded, there should be a real judicial inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Such a Committee would give the opportunity for the Minister and his officials to state their case against the board, and then for the board to rebut that case with evidence, and then the Committee, sitting, as a Select Committee always does, as a judicial and impartial authority, moved not by the animus of political bias, but by the evidence laid before it, would be able to say whether or not the case against the Board was made out. Before the Minister is allowed to be both accuser and judge, as he is under this Clause, I think the question ought to be referred to an impartial authority.

§ Mr. JOHN BAKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so, for reasons other than those given by the Mover, and as I am going to say some things that might be considered offensive to the Minister if they were taken as having personal application, I wish to assure him that that is not my intention, because I have used similar words about another Ministerial office, occupied by another Gentleman, on another matter. I object to this Bill, and I do not believe that any single individual should have the power for which the Minister is asking here. If, as he stated, when introducing the Bill, there is such rottenness and corruptness among a whole group of people as he alleges to exist on two particular boards of guardians, what would it be if we gave the administration to one individual, without proper check or supervision? It is he alone who is to say: "I do not agree." I do not think any person should have that power, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, because it tends to prevent that of which he himself complains. He has had supervision over these boards of guardians and has failed to keep them in order, and I submit that it would be wiser if he had a body such as is suggested in the Amendment, to whom to report these guardians, than if he acted on his own initiative, and said to them: "Get out; I am putting in somebody who will do as I tell them." That is what it amounts to, and that kind of statement is going to way with every Minister and with every change of Ministry.

The right hon. Gentleman said some very rude things about me and my colleagues when he introduced the Bill, because I have been advocating now for over a quarter of a century that the standard of relief should be raised. It has now got to a point where he says that this has not only got to stop, but that the standard of relief has got to be lowered. He and I differ. Let us change places to-morrow, and I shall be sacking the boards of guardians who do not live up to my standard just as he will want to sack those who live beyond his standard. Where shall we get to? That will establish such a state of chaos in the administration of the Poor Law that it could not be carried on in a reasonable manner. The right hon. Gentleman says that I am corrupt and 2295 that all those who say they want work or maintenance are corrupt. We go out to the street corners at election time, and say: "If you people want proper treatment before a board of guardians, elect men and women from your own class who know your troubles and your needs and who have sympathy with you, and then you will have a better chance of getting reasonable treatment." The Minister, because he does not agree with that viewpoint, calls it corruption. I am recalcitrant and unashamed, and I am going on, and I hope to see the day when there will be nobody in this country holding the view that the right hon. Gentleman holds as to what is a sufficient amount of relief to give to a fellow citizen and a fellow Christian.

With regard to the charge of extravagance made by the Minister against two boards in particular, I am old enough to remember the time when it was thought sufficient, by boards of guardians composed of middle-class ladies and gentlemen in this country, to give 2s. 6d. a week in relief. No person at that time could get 21 meals for 30 pennies, or a week's shelter for 30 pennies, unless he was fortunate enough to have friends or relatives who would give him accommodation. How those people existed, I do not know. It has been a continuous fight ever since to try to get this Christian community to recognise its duty to its fellows, and not only has it failed up to now, but we now have a Minister who wants to go back. Does he want to go back to that 2s. 6d? He will say "No"; but if you get further Ministers of his type, they will want to go back to the 2s. 6d. If I may use an illustration which occurred in this House not many days ago on another matter, to emphasise my point, I would refer to the hon. Member who quoted some paper from the Front Bench about the wages of miners in 1828. Is that the point to which we are going back in Poor Law relief, the point where the man who did not get enough wage, based upon so many loaves of bread a week, had a right to apply to the guardians and get an extra loaf? I am not willing to go back to that kind of thing, and the Minister can call me corrupt and use all the offensive terms he can imagine. He can, if he likes, sit up all night and make a whole pile of terms, and when he 2296 has done, I will laugh at him. I want to go forward, but this Bill is not going forward, but backward. It is giving power to individuals that those individuals ought not to have, whether they have a name the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman who holds office now, or a name the same as mine.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The two hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have addressed themselves rather to the general principles of the Bill than to the particular point to which the Amendment is directed, because it is not relevant, I submit, that on this Amendment we should discuss whether or not the administration of the Board of Guardians in West Ham is corrupt. The point here is whether it is desirable or necessary that no Order should be made under the Bill except after inquiry by a Select Committee of this House. I cannot accept the account given by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) of what the Bill enables us to do. It does not enable a Minister to say to any board of guardians: "I do not approve of the way you are acting." He has to be convinced that they have either ceased to perform their functions or are acting in such a way as to render them unable to function. In respect to the West Ham Board of Guardians, we were faced with an emergency. At the present time they are only giving 75 per cent. of the relief which was being given a little while ago, because they have not very much money, but there will come a time, unless some other events take place, when there will be no money, and that is exactly the contingency that I desire to avoid

What would be the effect of passing this Amendment? It. would mean that no relief would be given in West Ham after the funds of the present board were exhausted until the Select Committee had investigated the circumstances and made a Report. If I may say so, I think both hon. Members have lost sight of one rather important point in connection with this case. Some time ago there was a difference of opinion between the Minister of Health and the Poplar Board of Guardians. In that case, the Poplar board issued a pamphlet in which they pleaded guilty and were proud of it, but in this case the guardians admit that they are guilty, but say they are ashamed of it.

§ Mr. J. JONES

We will listen to that later on.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

No, the hon. Member will listen to it now. I quoted words, on the Second Reading of the Bill, used by the vice-chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians to that effect.

§ Mr. JONES

On a point of Order. Was not that a personal expression of opinion during a debate in the board room and not an admission by the board generally of anything wrong?

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Here are the words of the vice-chairman which I quoted. For the moment, I cannot lay my hand upon them, but he said in effect that things had been done in regard to which the least they could do was to be ashamed of them.

§ Mr. GROVES

The words in question are in column 1652 of your own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not need to repeat the words. They were not challenged. That was the opinion, not of an individual, but of the vice-chairman of the board. The chairman of the board himself said he had before him a number of cases of relief in which there had been allowances for which there was no justification whatever. In this case the charges are admitted by the board. The inquiry has already been held by the auditor, and the result of the auditor's report has been published.

§ Mr. J. JONES

This is a new interpretation of local government law.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The auditor's report has been made, and the members of the board have not challenged it.

§ Mr. JONES

On a point of Order. In a previous case in West Ham, when a number of Liberal and Tory Members were sent to prison, there was a public inquiry held. Why not on this occasion?

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. JONES

No, but it is a fact.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

In these circumstances, it is absurd to suggest that there should be a further inquiry.

§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is no defence and it is no explanation. He began by giving his view of the Amendment in relation to the first words of the Clause. He said the principle was that, if the Minister of Health was of opinion that a board of guardians had ceased to carry out its duties, he might take steps to suppress it.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The words are that the board of guardians for any Poor Law union have ceased, or have acted in such a manner as will render them unable to discharge their functions.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

That is still more a matter of conjecture. If the Minister thinks the Board is likely to be unable to carry on its work, he proposes to take the serious and drastic line of suppressing that local authority for the time being. He says that, if we accept this Amendment, West Ham is going to starve. But, surely, it is possible to have a limited inquiry and for the Ministry of Health to empower the board of guardians to borrow a limited sum for a short time, while the matter is being investigated. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no need for an inquiry because the chairman and the vice-chairman have admitted that they are guilty. But that is not the point. The point is, be they guilty or not, whether the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the serious step of destroying the boards of guardians for the time being. Our position is that such a decision ought not to rest with the Minister. The point is whether the guilt of the chairman and vice-chairman is of such a kind as to warrant the right hon. Gentleman putting this Bill into operation and destroying an organ of local government. It seems to us to be a very reasonable request to make that this power of suppressing a board of guardians should not be exercised until this House has had an opportunity of examining the whole situation. We do not think this House ought to take away the rights of local government, but, if the Minister will persist in this Bill, surely we are asking nothing unreasonable in suggesting that before such a step is taken the matter should be referred to a Committee of this House, and that, on the findings of that Committee, the right hon. Gentleman should take action or no action, as the case may be.

§ Mr. GROVES

I want to support this Amendment in a quite dispassionate manner. I submit that the points and the details which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted in support of the drastic supersession of the boards of guardians have been given him by his political supporters in the West Ham Borough. I submit that the controversy in West Ham has been carried on very largely by information, which is sometimes published and sometimes is not, by the leader of a political party which is opposed to the majority of the guardians, and whose name is Mr. Ward. If the right hon. Gentleman in this House is going to pay special attention to what political partisans offer in evidence, in particular cases, of persons who are relieved in West Ham Union, I do not think it is a great thing for a Minister to do. The Minister has emphasised that the board of guardians has ceased to perform its functions, and I respectfully submit that that is not so.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

What I said was that the guardians have been acting in such a manner as to make it impossible for them to continue.

§ Mr. GROVES

The Minister is already commencing his work in West Ham. To-day at relieving stations there were strangers, official persons, obviously part of the machinery of supersession, and I submit that it is wrong that any such steps should have been taken before this Bill became an Act of Parliament. The Minister referred to certain cases of abuse of relief, and he said there are 100 cases. I think we have about 27,000 families to relieve in the union. Is it reasonable to take this action because you get 100 cases of abuse out of that number?

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made it clear on the Second Reading that the 100 cases were not all the cases that could be found. They were the result of a test examination taken by the auditor.

§ Mr. GROVES

If a man has stolen one article surely it is not fair to assume that he has stolen six. If you have some cases out of 100, surely it is not fair to assume that all the others are the same, and it is not fair to assume that, because 100 people have done certain 2300 things, all the others of the 27,000 have done the same. I submit that the circumstances in West Ham do not warrant the Minister's direct action. The hon. Member for Upton (Captain Holt) perpetrated the usual fallacy of arguing from particular cases to general principles. He said that somebody got a relief ticket for 16s., and had the audacity to purchase for the money a tin of peaches and Devonshire cream. What if they did? Assuming that that took place. I protest against arguing as if that kind of thing were general. We do not say that all the people in our borough are perfect. You would not get all the people perfect in Woolwich. The whole of this argument is based on two propositions: first, the alleged abuse of relief, and, secondly, the bankruptcy of the unions.

I know that we cannot argue the general question of Poor Law relief, but I submit that you should have had an impartial inquiry by a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the auditor's Report. I think it is true that during the very critical period when unemployment has been mounting up, when the people have been driven on to the Poor Law, auditors have come to West Ham, and examined accounts and made reports. But only recently has the administration of the Union been regarded by the Minister as inimical to the general good. I am amazed that today the Minister should hint that people in receipt of poor relief should not have the right to vote for Poor Law guardians. Who are we to look to if we cannot look to our popularly elected people to save the citizens from starvation in their own area? That is the bedrock principle of Poor Law relief, the prevention of destitution. No one has said that the scale paid in West Ham, with the exception of the small proportion of cases which have been referred to, is extravagance. If you compare it, of course, with that paid in certain other areas where they have not the same regard for the welfare of the poor people, you get a comparison that is unfair to us. If it is worked out, an able-bodied man gets about 11s. a week. If that can be assumed to be extravagant, I hope hon. Members opposite will tell us what they think is a reasonable amount of money per week for able-bodied persons to live on. 2301 Then you have to deal with the question of the family. A man and his wife before the intervention of the Minister only had 19s. per week between them to live upon. There has been some objection and the West Ham Board of Guardians were ordered to cease to give just that additional 5s. to old age pensions. I am very annoyed personally about that and I think it is the worst thing the Minister could have done. People have lived to the age of 70 and just get that money that can keep them in decency and West Ham gives them this additional 5s. That is much cheaper than these poor men and women going into the workhouse for the rest of their lives. Those are the circumstances. I hope the head shaking of the Minister does not mean that he is denying my statement, because it is being done. People were elected to carry out this detail. These guardians grant 5s. in addition to the 10s. a week old age pension. I say the statutory officers, the relieving officers, have refused to obey the instructions—I do not mean the verbal orders—made by the elected representatives of the people.

§ The CHAIRMAN

This is straying rather far from the Amendment.

§ Mr. GROVES

I was just trying to prove that the action of the Minister was such that in the circumstances of the moment we are warranted in asking for the special intervention of a Select Committee. I think the administration in these circumstances is liable to get out of the hands of the people. I want the Minister to say why the work has been commenced of taking the administration out of the popularly elected people. With over 30,000 people on relief, it is a marvellous thing that only 100 people should have been referred to as taking advantage of the circumstances. The people in our borough are not only law-abiding and well-wishers of the community but they have acted as decently and as well as any citizens of the community could have acted. I cannot see the end of the Minister's precipitant act if he thinks he is going to send an army of officials down to West Ham to take charge of the offices. He is smiling. Does he deny that they are there? I was in the relieving station myself this morning, and I was invited to go to see them. I 2302 did so. I might say that they brought their own typewriters. The work must be done, and I trust the Minister will realise that the appointment of a Select Committee will assist him and give the people in West Ham an opportunity of bringing to his notice the fact that when we have ourselves discovered cases of abuse it is true to say that West Ham guardians have hauled these people up before the magistrates and had them sent to prison or compelled them to pay the money back. We have done all that could reasonably be expected. After all, this is still a free country, and the action of the Minister will be doing a thing that will cut right across the freedom of this country.

§ Mr. RYE

I agree that this is a pretty drastic Clause and gives very wide powers to the Minister, and in the ordinary way I should have hesitated to support the Bill, but when one considers that in the latter portion of the Bill there is provision by way of safeguard, I do not think that we are entitled to consider that the powers given to the Minister are too wide. In Subsection (2) it is provided: An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within 21 day after the Order has been laid before it presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may he annulled His Majesty may by Order in Council annual the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or the making of a fresh Order.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

Does the hon. Member realise that the Order to which he refers is only an Order after the Minister has exercised his discretion?

§ Mr. RYE

I fully appreciate that that is so.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

Is the hon. Member's point that there is a safeguard in this House for the Minister's first action with regard to the West Ham Board of Guardians?

§ Mr. RYE

The Minister has a full discretion to exercise his rights if he is of opinion that a case is made out. My point is that if he has done so without adequate reasons, it is open to any Member of this House to raise the question in this House and ask the Minister to 2303 give his reasons for coming to his decision. It will be open to any Member of the House to prove that it was an unreasonable action on the Minister's part. If, as a fact, the Minister had not had adequate reason, it is obvious the safeguard would be put in force and the Order made to supersede the guardians would be rescinded by Order in Council. That, I think, is the real safeguard. Personally, I cannot think any Minister would ever exercise these drastic powers except for good and sufficient reasons. It is inconceivable to suppose that any Minister holding the responsible position he does would do anything to put an end to the functions of the boards of guardians unless they were aware of must ample and sufficient reasons for doing so. At all events, if the Minister were to make a mistake—let us put it at that —or wantonly took action, there is this safeguard in Sub-section (2). In my opinion that is quite sufficient safeguard for anyone.

§ Mr. W. THORNE

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report. Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I am going to move to report Progress. The Hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has made a definite statement in this House to the effect that certain officials from the Minister of Health's Department are now operating in the borough of West Ham before this power has been given to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health shook his head and said he knew nothing about it. That same statement was endorsed by the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, in consequence of these two knowing nothing about what is operating in West Ham and that Government officials are down there operating—

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

Directly I heard the statement of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) we made inquiries, and so far we have no knowledge whatever about it. The statement, as I understand it, is that the hon. Member for Stratford has seen some strange faces down there at West Ham, but so far as my Department is concerned we know nothing about it.

§ Mr. J. JONES

In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's innocence and all his smiles, I do not altogether fathom what he means. Some of us are acquainted with the district and know that there have been officials there. We know some of them. I came in touch with some of these officials. Some of their names have already been mentioned as the officials who are going to take over from the board of guardians. They are going to be paid for it. Some of us have worked from early in the morning till late at night at this job, and you refuse us even a shilling lunch. The report has come that these gentlemen are going round almost assuming the authority not yet given to them. Perhaps you think you can play that game with us, but we have a few cards up our sleeves that we can play yet. There is such a thing as an all-in strike, and some of us are overseers and have to levy the rate.

§ Sir K. WOOD

It is suggested to me that, as the audit is now taking place in West Ham, perhaps the strange faces may be those of the auditors.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

May—

§ Mr. JONES

Sit down; I am speaking. I am asking if these auditors are there. It is on these auditors' reports that you have made up your case.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The point on which I allowed this Motion to be made was whether there are persons in West Ham sent by the Minister in anticipation of the passing of this Bill. It must be confined to that point.

§ Mr. GROVES

I said that they ought not to be there without the Minister's knowledge. In reality they are the bailiffs. That is what this Bill means. I did not like to make this protest as to who they are this morning, but I think they should be stopped until the King gives his assent to this Bill.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has actually made the appointments of these officials and, if so, will he tell us their names and then we can see if they tally? Can he make known to the House whether these persons have been informed that this is to be their job?

§ Sir K. WOOD

The Committee may take it from me that none of our officials have gone down to West Ham.

§ Mr. B. SMITH

If the hon. Gentleman finds on inquiry that these people are there without his authority, will he take the necessary steps to secure their removal?

§ Miss LAWRENCE

I desire to remind the Committee of the title of this Bill. It is not the West Ham (Extermination) Bill—it is the Board of Guardians Default Bill. It is a general Bill dealing with unions all over England. The last time we discussed this question I asked that a list of those unions who had borrowed money should be read to the House; and a very illuminating dialogue took place between Mr. Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Mr. Speaker—speaking of this list—said: Are these all affected by the Bill which is about to be discussed? and the hon. Gentleman answered, "Yes, Sir." That list includes some of the 2308 most important industrial centres, and the Measure we are now dealing with provides that every one of those boards can be superseded by the Minister of Health. At first it was suggested by the Minister that this question should be referred to a Select Committee, but the Minister replied, "West Ham cannot wait," and that an inquiry was necessary because West Ham had pleaded guilty. Some seven or eight of us sprang to our feet crying, "When?" We were then told that the vice-chairman of the board, speaking in debate, had said that he thought that some of these cases were indefensible. The argument is that because the vice-chairman said that some of the cases were very bad, that Wrest Ham has pleaded guilty; and that because West Ham has pleaded guilty you need not inquire into any other cases. 2309 That was the only argument in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The question is whether the existence of all boards of guardians is to be subject to the discretion of the Minister; and he defended that policy on the ground that the chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians said that some cases were very bad. Then, as a further defence, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) said that there were safeguards, because, if the Minister wished to supersede a board, an Order would be laid on the Table of the House and could be discussed. It is very comforting to know that you are to have an inquest after the execution, but it is not very much good to the corpse.

§ Mr. RYE

The inquest can be held at a very early date. It can be held the day after the Order has been made; it is not necessary to wait 21 days.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

The Bill says: An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliamen as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within twenty-one days after the Order has been laid before it presents an address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be annulled"— and so on. You have, then, 21 days, and you have first to find a day for debate. Supposing that any one of these boards of guardians were brought to an end at this time of the year, what possible chance should we have of getting a day for debate in the House? And if we did get a day, I cannot, greatly as I respect the House, imagine a worse court of inquiry for such a matter. The question whether or not a board of guardians is likely to be in default is a matter which needs detailed proof, and something like a jury—something like a trial in Court. It needs to be gone into by a body of persons furnished with the necessary information. It is notorious that the House of Commons is not a place for detailed inquiry into facts; that is shown by the fact that we have Committees. The floating population of this Chamber never can settle down thoroughly to discuss facts of this nature; they are facts which, from their very nature, need investigation by a Committee. Now I come to my final point, namely, the policy and the plan by which the Minister is going to be guided in dealing with these matters. I notice that, 2310 among the crimes in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman read out to the House, this very horrible one is included: Old age pensions are being augmented to bring them up to the full scale of 15s. for single and 25s. for married people.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Will the hon. Lady finish the quotation?

§ Miss LAWRENCE

It says that old age pensions are being augmented to bring them up to the full scale of 15s. and 25s. That is the crime. Then comes the aggravation: And in the majority of cases there is no attempt to record the circumstances of sons who might be able to pay something. It is described as a bad thing in itself to raise the pensions to the terrific scale of 15s.; and it also says that there ought to be a proper inquiry into the circumstances of sons. Then I am a little unhappy as to the attitude of the Minister with regard to democracy. A very great deal has been made of the fact that people on out-relief are likely to vote for out-relief. Everyone knows, however, that even in West Ham—

§ The CHAIRMAN

This is getting rather wide of the question whether there should be a Select Committee.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

With all due submission, I am trying to show that the purpose for which each of these Orders is made ought to be ventilated before a Select Committee. If we can conceive of a Minister having in his mind a definite policy of bringing down out-relief to supersede democracy—I do not say it is so, but if you could have such a Minister—it would be very undesirable to place in the hands of the Minister powers which ought to be the subject almost of a judicial decision. My argument is that you cannot safely trust to the executive itself, or to one Minister of the Crown in particular, the difficult duty of discriminating when you ought to get rid of elected representatives; and I thought I was right in saying that the Minister now has shown a distinct bias against democracy in his speech. I hope that that is not disorderly. I was going to say that the persons on out-relief are very greatly outnumbered by the rest of the population—by seven to one in West Ham, by 10 to four in other cases—and you cannot say that, if the rest of the population 2311 strongly disapprove, their votes will be overborne by those of the recipients of out-relief. To adduce that argument at all shows a bias against democracy. One case that the Minister gave was most distressing. One of the guardians said that he was a supporter of the Minister, and wanted to follow the Minister. He stood for re-election, and West Ham never sent him back again.

§ Sir K. WOOD

He was a Labour guardian.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

Yes, but he did say that he approved of the Minister. I know that the people of East Ham and West Ham are so far misguided that they do not trust people who support the policy of the Minister; but to use as a serious argument against democracy the fact that, it may be, in Barrow, or Newcastle, or Birmingham, or where not, people do not support the policy of the Minister, seems to me rather thin. My desire that this question shall go to a Select Committee is rather strengthened by the attitude the Minister took in speaking on the matter last Monday. I submit, therefore, that the question whether West Ham is in the wrong or not, whether it has pleaded guilty or not, is a very narrow foundation for saying that in no case will there be inquiry by a properly selected Committee before supersession takes place. I say that in the case of a vast number of boards in important industrial centres, for the local administration of which we have great respect, this Bill gives the Minister power to supersede any of those boards at his own unfettered discretion. That, we say, is too great a power for any Minister to have without proper confirmation and inquiry by the House of Commons, and I very much hope that when an answer is given we shall have a little more about the constitutional point, and a little more about the general powers—which are what we are discussing—and a little less of enlargement upon the particular case of one board of guardians which is serving as a scapegoat.

§ Mr. W. THORNE

I desire to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). The real cause of this Bill, the Minister said, was some slight corruption in the Borough of West Ham in connection with the board of 2312 guardians. I want to say unhesitatingly that the highest standard of commercial morality is not entirely on the other side of the House; I suggest that the standard of commercial morality is just as high on this side as on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher!"] I think we can give them a few points in that direction. Many charges have been made against the West Ham Board of Guardians, and that is the reason why this Bill has been brought forward. As a matter of fact, if the Minister of Health had done his duty there would have been no need for this Bill at all. I think he has neglected his duty. I would remind the Committee that last year the Ministry had charge of the West Ham Union for three or four weeks, and I am convinced that if those gentlemen who were administering Poor Law relief in West Ham then had found any corruption going on, it would have been reported to the Minister at the time. If at that time he thought that there was a great deal of corruption going on, and that the West Ham Board of Guardians was not doing its duty, why did he not take action then, and not allow the matter to drift on for about 12 months?

In the course of these Debates the Minister of Health has said that at the present time the West Ham Board of Guardians have been compelled to cut down the scale of relief by 25 per cent. That is due to the fact that there is very little money. The Minister of Health has refused to grant any more money at all to the West Ham Board of Guardians. Therefore, they have to rely on the money they have collected from the various local authorities that comprise the area, and in a very short time there will be no money at all for relief of any kind. I understand that the bankers have been authorised not to allow any further overdraft, because, on the last occasion when a deputation went to the Ministry of Health, the only money they would grant was £100,000 to carry on with for the time being. The result has been that they have been compelled to cut down the scale of relief by 25 per cent. I am convinced that, if the West Ham Board of Guardians would now agree to cut down the relief to the extent of 25 per cent., this Bill would be withdrawn to-morrow, because what the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are after is to make the boards of guardians cut 2313 down their scales of relief all over their areas to a maximum not exceeding 40s. If that is the position, and if, when the Minister attempts to take charge of the Poor Law authority in West Ham, he attempts to cut down the scale of relief to a maximum of 40s.—which will mean that a man and his wife with six or seven children cannot receive any more than 40s.—then I am convinced that there will be very serious trouble, not only in West Ham but in many other parts of the country.

I support this Amendment because, if a Select Committee were appointed as it suggests, then, if it were known that there were any defaulting boards of guardians, or any form of corruption in the slightest degree, the guardians concerned would be summoned to appear before the Select Committee, which, as hon. Members know, would be selected from the various parties in the House. There would be an investigation, witnesses would be called and examined, and I say unhesitatingly that, if any corruption is found in West Ham or in any other place, I shall be the very first to try and get it stopped. I have never sought election to a board of guardians because I should be too sympathetic. Everyone knows, or should know, that the sympathies of members of boards of guardians who have been through the economic mill, as many of us have, must be deep-rooted and they must be more sympathetic to the poor people they represent than those who have never been through the trouble we have been through ourselves. I admit that there has been a very big improvement in the method of dealing with poor relief compared with what there was many years ago. When I was six years old there were four of us, and what my mother got was one loaf and one shilling. That was a very inhumane system. It is more humane to-day even than it was pre-War, because, pre-War, the amount was limited to about 10s., but no one can say there is any extravagance even now. You cannot find any Poor Law authority that is giving less than 19s. for a man and wife, the same as we give in West Ham, and in some cases they give 23s., and in some 24s., but when the West Ham Poor Law Authority are dealing with children our scale is very much higher than in any other part of the country. If I were a member of the 2314 West Ham Board of Guardians my sympathies would be with the people, and I think I should be prepared to give them the full scale of relief. No one in West Ham can receive more than 25s., and then there must be a man and wife and about seven children. All forms of income are taken into consideration.

When the last deputation went to the right hon. Gentleman's Department 18 suggestions were submitted to them. They went back and reported, and I am not quite sure whether you were altogether satisfied with the replies given to those suggestions. I think they met you in every particular and I do not think you have any objection on that point. Even now you can appoint any Committee you like. A Committee chosen from the three parties could make a thorough investigation into the scale of administration. If you can find out that there has been any maladministration, if the guardians have been making any profits out of their position or receiving any perquisites or anything of that kind, I shall be with you every time, because we believe in purity of government as much as you do. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment it will give him every opportunity and it will take a good deal of responsibility off his shoulders, because it simply means that unless it is accepted, the Minister must appoint his own men. Whether the guardians will have a chance of rebutting the charges which have been brought against them I am not in a position to say, but it appears to be dangerous to give the power to one individual, whether a Minister or anyone else, to select certain gentlemen to administer relief, more especially in West Ham, and if there was a Royal Commission to investigate the methods of relief throughout the country I am not sure that Birmingham could not be roped in for maladministration. I am quite convinced that the sympathies of working-class representatives must be more deeply rooted than those who have not been through the same difficulties.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I do not think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have treated the Amendment as seriously as it should have been treated. The Minister has simply said the reason for not accepting it was that the West Ham Guardians could not carry on. 2315 That argument has been thoroughly exploded. Last year he administered the union of West Ham without any authority whatever from this House, and only through the goodwill of the guardians he was let off and did not have to come to the House to be indemnified for doing what he had no business to do. If we had a Select Committee, part of their investigation could be as to what advantage there was during the period the Minister took charge and what advantage the ratepayers gained through that administration. I think that part of the Minister's activities ought to have been investigated and dealt with by the House long before now. I do not think that in dealing with even a board of guardians he has any right to act like a small Mussolini and without any authority from Parliament take over the functions of a directly elected body. Then before the Bill or anything like it is passed we ought to have an investigation as to what it is that has moved the Minister. I understood on Monday that the chief reason was that there was a corrupt motive on the part of the electors and that that, of course, would react on the elected person, who would have to satisfy the person who elected him by giving him relief which was not justified. I think all dockyard Members and all who represent Government employés are in a similar position, and some of us would like to bring evidence before such a Select Committee to, prove that dockyard Members are intimidated in that way.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is neither in Order on the Amendment, nor on the Bill.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I was looking in the book and it seemed to me we might be able to frame the terms of reference to the Select Committee in such a way as to cover the whole question of corruption.

Viscountess ASTOR

This is a case of municipal corruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

§ Mr. J. JONES

You are a liar, if you say so.

Viscountess ASTOR

Is it really in order for an hon. Member to compare a dockyard Member with a board of guardians which has been proved corrupt?

§ Mr. JONES

You are a liar! [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will not withdraw.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

§ Mr. JONES

I apologise to the Noble Lady and substitute the term "terminological inexactitude."

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I do not know why anyone should get excited about this. We want this Select Committee in order that the charges on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his Bill may be investigated and dealt with. When the Noble Lady says people have been proved corrupt, where is the evidence? The right hon. Gentleman quoted something that was said by the Chairman of the West Ham Board, and in order to refute our arguments on this side he puts up the pamphlet of the Poplar Board, "Guilty, and Proud of it." We also plead guilty to the fact that in dealing with 10,000 cases a week we might occasionally be had, as even this House might be had by someone who deceived it. We do not say we are people who can always know what is in each other's minds and when we are dealing with a very large number of poor people to whom 6d. or 1s. something of consequence we may perhaps be deceived. But the real crime of that is not with the individual but with that sort of system of society which makes it pay poor people to tell a lie in order to get a paltry 6d. We want this investigated by a Select Committee. We do not think it is good enough to take West Ham and make it a sort of chopping block as it has been made here.

This is not a Bill to deal with West Ham only. It is to deal with all boards that the right hon. Gentleman thinks may get themselves in difficulties. Another point the Committee ought to investigate is the action of the right hon. Gentleman in putting them into difficulties. He can always land a board into difficulties if he wants to. He can say: "You shall not have any more money. I will not sanction any more of your loans." But I am certain if a Select Committee was set up to investigate the administration of the Poor Law in necessitous areas where loans are necessary the House would be surprised at the purity of administration of all those 2317 boards. The Parliamentary Secretary cited a case the other night where there was a family income of £7 a week. I think that is a case a Select Committee ought to go into and put all the facts on the Table. The notorious Mr. Cooper thought he investigated us in Poplar by running through our establishments. He put up a case where someone had been getting £4 a week, and asked, "Does anyone imagine that this man will ever go to work again?" The House of Commons was deceived over that case which was flung across the Floor, and thought that everyone in Poplar got £4 a week, and also that this particular man would never go to work again. As a matter of fact he only had the relief for one week, and was back at his work again, and he had a family of 10 children to maintain. I asked the hon. Gentleman to tell us the particulars of this £7 case, and he refused. If we could get before a Select Committee we should have all these cases investigated in a proper manner. We want a Select Committee because, frankly, we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman or his assistant. It is true that this is a question of political principle. You believe in starving the people. We believe in preventing their starvation.

Viscountess ASTOR

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

It is no good the Noble Lady shaking her head. It shows her ignorance of social conditions. She is the most ignorant Member in the House about social conditions. For a wealthy woman to be always interfering when the conditions of poor people are discussed, is simply disgusting.

6.0. P.M.

The genesis of this controversy is the question whether poor people are to be adequately relieved or not. When it was a question of the men coming home from the War, you gave them almost all that they were pleased to ask for. We want a Select Committee to go into the matter and to be able to investigate it by questioning the right hon. Gentleman as to what exactly is in his mind. In the East End we believe that what he has in his mind in regard to the able-bodied is that he is going to attempt to cause the men who are out of work to live on the miserable pittance that they get from unemployment insurance. I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parlia- 2318 mentary Secretary to deny that. Is it not a fact that they intend to do their best to forbid and stop boards of guardians from giving any assistance to men who are on the Employment Exchange? We have heard such a rumour. Before such a principle can be laid down, this House ought to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the whole conditions.

It is no answer to say to us that the case is proved. There has been no investigation. When we are told that 100 or even 1,000 cases have been investigated, all it means is that there is a different standard of relief set up by boards of guardians from the one which the right hon. Gentleman thinks ought to be set up. Hon. Members opposite believe in democracy when democracy does what they want it to do, but when democracy does something different, they want to abolish it. Before it is abolished in the case of boards of guardians, there ought to be a Select Committee set up. I hope the Committee will carry our Amendment.

§ Sir BEDDOE REES

I have no intention of discussing the merits of the West Ham case. I have got sufficient data to judge of that case; but this Bill goes very far beyond West Ham. In confers powers upon the Minister of Health which will have to be used with great care. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment in some form. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill. A Select Committee is a very complex proceeding, and the Minister would be compelled to wait a very considerable time before he could get the findings of a Select Committee. Even that is better than nothing. I would not mind a judicial inquiry; but I do think that there should be some inquiry before the Minister acts under the powers given in this Bill. The only safeguard, so far as I can see is that which says: An Order made under this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House within twenty-one days after the Order has been laid before it presents an address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be annulled. There is an Amendment on the Paper making that positive, reversing the order, and providing that the Order is not to be put into operation until it has received 2319 assent by Resolution of this House. If the Minister can tell us that he will accept that Amendment, I should be satisfied, but without some safeguard I do not think we ought to let this Bill go. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy us, because we are very apprehensive. We believe that he is taking powers which are unprecedented, which strike at the very root of what we believe to be democratic government, namely, powers to suppress a popularly-elected representative body. If he is to take action of that sort, it should be done after the fullest inquiry, and this House should, at least, have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Unless we can have some satisfaction on that point, I shall vote for the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. JONES

In so far as we are concerned as representatives of part of the West Ham Union area—which has unfortunately been designated as West Ham, much to our disadvantage—we court full inquiry. West Ham Union is the largest Poor Law area in the country, including eight different townships. The name of West Ham has been advertised to such an extent, before and after the event, that we have had a great deal of discredit cast upon us because we happen to come from West Ham. In addition to any other claim, I happen to have been a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians in the past when some friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite were sent to gaol for corruption. Of six men who went to gaol, five of them belonged to the party opposite. One of them was a member of our party, but he was expelled a month before his trial took place because they discovered that he had been doing things he ought not to have done.

The Minister of Health deliberately went out of his way in introducing this Bill to make corruption the basis of his case. He has power, if he elects to do so, to single out those who have been guilty of corruption. He has power to send his inspectors to every committee. Some of them have been there already. I remember that Mr. Oxley was a regular attendant at the meetings of the board of guardians and of the different committees. In a radius such as ours, with a population of 1,250,000, it is impossible to deliver all the relief at one station. We have to sub-divide the work, with the 2320 result that we have 15 relief stations in the West Ham Poor Law area. The consequence is that we have to sub-divide the work amongst members of the board.

What is the gravamen of the charge? The charges are epitomised in the report of the auditor, which has been issued. He has picked out 100 cases during a period of three years. During those three years we have had an average, taking the industrial troubles through which we have passed, of more than 25,000 cases a week to deal with, in eight to 15 relief stations. We challenge any court of inquiry or any committee of investigation. This is the worst report that could be made against us. The gentleman, evidently, went down to West Ham with instructions to pick out cases, and he picked them out. Out of the whole of the cases there are really only two cases. I challenge the House to appoint any committee they like. Leave us out of it, call us as witnesses if you desire. On the basis of the charges in this report, if the West Ham Board of Guardians are abolished, you will be committing one of the grossest acts of treachery towards democracy, if this is all the evidence that can be submitted and if these are the worst cases that can be found.

The allegation has been made that members of the Board had relatives working for the Board. Good God! What a crime! Relatives of Ministers have high office in the government of the country. I remember that one of them some years ago went to gaol for seven years. He was a relative of a Minister of the Crown at the time. If we examined now the list of those who hold high office under the Crown, it would be found that they include the political sons or orphans of the storm from the last election. Those who did not secure seats are now, in many cases, County Court Judges, simply because of services rendered to the party. In the last honours list we find that the chairman of a Conservative Association has been made a baronet. These gentlemen receive honours, and the next day their names appear in the list of a board of directors who want some money from the public. The guinea pig then becomes a prominent person, because his name can be depended upon to get money out of the mugs. That is not corruption, but if a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians has 2321 a son who applies for a job under the Beard, and he gets it, he becomes a criminal because he happens to be that man's son.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, "Is that your charge of corruption?" If so, other people have been doing that for years. In the past, no-one of the working classes could even apply for a job, never mind get it. Since Labour became a dominant factor, this sort of thing has been discovered to be corrupt, simply because we give the worker a chance which he never had before of filling jobs which he had never been able to do before, because he happened to be a workman. Talk about square pegs in round holes! In so far as