HC Deb 15 November 1932 vol 270 cc1015-70
Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. We are faced with the difficulty of proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill immediately after the Second Reading. Usually Amendments appear on the Paper and Members understand what is their purpose. Manuscript Amendments have been handed in from various quarters. Will you kindly state what Amendments you propose to call, so that those whose Amendments are ruled out of order may decide that they have no further interest in them. It would be as well at the outset if you would tell us whether any Amendments are to be called and whose Amendments they are.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the only Amendment on Sub-section (1) which may be in order is an Amendment, on page 2, line 19, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words: The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in. determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments. I have not had much time to consider the Amendment, but at the moment I am inclined to think it is in order, and I propose to call it in due course, reserving the right if, as the argument develops, I find it is out of order, to say so.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

I have only just heard of the Amendment, but I submit that it is out of order because it would give me power to make regulations which would increase the charge.

The CHAIRMAN

It is precisely with that idea in my mind that I said I reserved the right to say that the Amendment was out of order if I thought that was necessary as the discussion proceeded. The Amendment appears to be designed to give the Minister power to issue instructions as to what is his interpretation of the law. That is the way in which I read the Amendment at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point, and any question as to whether the Amendment is in order can be raised again when this Amendment is reached.

Mr. J. JONES

On a point of Order. We ordinary Members have no chance of considering any of these manuscript Amendments. It has already been suggested that nothing can be done to increase the charge. Is it not taking too much advantage of the patience of this House to ask us to accept Amendments of which we have never heard before?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going against what the House has decided. It decided to resolve itself immediately into Committee on the Bill.

Mr. JONES

Always on previous occasions we have had the Amendments printed.

HON. MEMBERS

No.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment which is in order is in Subsection (2) on page 2, line 20, after the word "relief" to insert the words "to any able-bodied person." There is another Amendment, in Subsection (2), line 22, after the word "observe," to insert the words "in any individual case." So far as I am able to discover those are the three Amendments that I propose to call.

Mr. MABANE

I handed in an Amendment, in Sub-section (1, a), page 1, line 16, after the word "half," to insert the words "as a minimum." May I have a Ruling as to why that Amendment is out of order, because I did not frame it with any intention of increasing the charge, but in order to make quite clear the intention of the Act? The Minister told us yesterday that at least as a minimum there should be 50 per cent. I have read the Bill and cannot see why the Minister said that. I felt, therefore, that the Minister would certainly desire this Amendment to be moved, in order that the Bill might be in conformity with his statement. Our experience in the past has been that public assistance committees to whom we have referred answers to questions by Ministers in this House in defining matters of this sort, have replied that they cannot administer answers to questions or speeches by Ministers, as they are not the law.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot base my Ruling upon anything which may have taken place in Debate or on any opinion expressed by any Member of the House, whether a Member of the Government or not. I have considered that particular Amendment with very great care, and I have come to the conclusion that it will be possible to interpret it in such a way as to enable the charge to be increased. On those grounds, I must rule it out of order. The only thing I can say, if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member, is that if I am wrong in considering that it might have the effect of increasing the charge, quite obviously the Amendment would have no effect whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order. If the Amendment to Sub-section (1), page 2, line 19, to insert the words: The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments. were carried, would that not mean that the Minister would have power to abolish the destitution test for the family? Is not the foundation of public assistance work that you apply the destitution test to the applicant, with the exception that is made in this Bill. You take the family income into account, and it is the destitution test applied to the whole family. If the words of that Amendment are accepted do they not mean that we abolish that test and substitute something entirely different?

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps in the circumstances my proper course would be to ask the hon. Member to try to justify his Amendment and to show that it is not out of order.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

To what Amendment are you referring?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment in page 2, line 19, at the end to add the words: The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments. 8.0 p.m.

I am inclined to think after what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Amendment has a tendency, at any rate, to place a temptation in the way of the Minister of Labour—if I may put it in that way—to issue some instructions which would widen the law, and, if it would do so, it would of course increase the charge, and would therefore be out of order.

Mr. MABANE

It was not my intention to do anything that would increase the charge.

Mr. J. JONES

Then what is the good of it?

Mr. MABANE

That is what I am endeavouring to show the Committee. In the course of these Debates the Minister has indicated the sort of interpretation which he desires to put upon this means test and upon the Bill. In the past experience of many of us we have found considerable confusion in the minds of members of public assistance committees as to how they should assess the means of families and how they should take into account the earnings or income of the members of a family in which an applicant is living.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Even in Huddersfield?

Mr. MABANE

Even in Huddersfield we have that difficulty, and it is in order to get over that difficulty that I want these words inserted in the Bill. Public assistance committees have asked for instruction and guidance as to how they shall assess the means of various members of a family. We are told that this Bill is a temporary Measure and that in a very short time a more comprehensive Measure will be introduced to alter the general basis of unemployment insurance—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the merits of his proposed Amendment. I want him first to try to persuade me that it is an Amendment to which there can be no objection on the ground that it goes beyond the terms of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded.

Mr. MABANE

It appears to me that there is a certain amount of money to be distributed through the agency of the public assistance committees by way of transitional payments. Our object is to secure that it shall be distributed in the most equitable manner possible. Public assistance committees may not have the wisdom of the Minister and may not decide to distribute the money in the most equitable way. They may want guidance from the Minister as to the distribution of the money. It seems to me that the Minister is, very properly, the person to guide them as to the best way in which the money can be distributed and the best way in which the means of families can be assessed. It also seems to me to be of advantage that that best way should be generally applied, instead of having one committee distributing the money in a manner that is not good, while another may distribute it in a manner that is good. Rather let them all distribute it in the manner that is good. If the words of the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, then the Minister would be able to instruct all committees throughout the country as to how they could distribute, not more money but the available money, for the best interests of the country.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

As my name is attached to the proposed Amendment may I add to the submission of my hon. Friend. I happen to have been Minister in four different departments, and I remember several occasions on which matters calling for interpretation have been raised by bodies such as these committees. Questions of interpretation are raised which are sometimes difficult and the Minister, in those cases, obtains the opinion of the Law Officers and sends out circulars saying that he is advised that the proper interpretation of the law—short of it being tested in the courts, which is, of course, the last resort—is so and so. He would naturally not be advised that such an interpretation was one that would involve any new charge, but it seems to me that in this case the Minister might desire to issue circulars on points requiring elucidation by the Law Officers and I submit therefore that it would be proper to allow this power to be taken as proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN

Does the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) suggest that a stereotyped regulation is to be sent out to all committees

Mr. MABANE

I do not think that is a point which I can properly answer now as it is the question of order which is now being discussed.

Mr. J. JONES

I have listened to this argument on the constitutional position and the rights and the powers of the Minister, and as one who is not only a Member of the House of Commons, but also a Member of a local authority, which is going to be severely hit when this Bill becomes law, I wish to say—

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member wants to put a point of Order on the particular matter which we are now discussing, he must confine himself to doing so.

Mr. JONES

I intend to do so, but that was a preliminary.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's preliminary is out of order. He must if he has any argument to advance upon the point, address himself to the question of whether this Amendment is or is not out of order.

Mr. JONES

The whole thing is out of order. I say emphatically that the House of Commons is jockeying with the Bill, that the Bill itself is an insult and that this Committee stage is a farce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] You can order me about as much as you like, but I tell you what I think.

The CHAIRMAN

I have now definitely come to the conclusion that I cannot admit this Amendment as being in order. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said just now, there is nothing to prevent the Minister at any time writing in reply to a local authority, when he is asked to do so, to tell them—if he has obtained it—the opinion of the Law Officers on the state of the law. It is obvious, however, from the argument of the hon. Member who proposed to move this Amendment, that it might have the effect of giving the Minister definite statutory power to state what the law was and that would be giving him a power which, even though it might not increase the charge, would go beyond the Resolution on which the Bill is founded. Nothing can be put into the Bill which would go outside the terms of that Resolution, and the Resolution contains no power and no authority to this Committee to put in any provision whatever dealing with any question of family means. I must therefore rule the Amendment out of order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rose I thought he was going to put a point of Order on the Amendment which was mentioned earlier—in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after the word "half," to insert the words, "as a minimum." If I may, I wish to revert to the point raised as to that Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

We have passed from that. I called on the hon. Member who had down an Amendment to a later part of the Clause to explain his Amendment in order that I might give a Ruling upon it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I submit, Sir Dennis, that you did not call upon my hon. Friend to move his Amendment and that the discussion which has just taken place arose upon a point of Order which the Leader of the Opposition raised. I am not complaining, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite got up, as I thought, to continue the discussion on the point as to the earlier Amendment, whereas in fact his point of Order related to the later Amendment on which you have just ruled. I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman then, but I venture to ask your permission now to make a submission to you in reference to the earlier Amendment which I think is important. There is real obscurity as regards the point raised in that earlier Amendment and the Minister actually stated yesterday that the Bill contained the words which the Amendment seeks to insert—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go back to that Amendment. The position is that it was for the Chair to select Amendments which could be moved. I dealt with the question to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now referring and said that I ruled that Amendment out of order. After that, we passed to another Amendment referring to a later line in the Clause, and I called upon the hon. Member to explain that Amendment in order to see if I could permit it to be moved. It is impossible now to go back to the consideration of any Amendment on any earlier part of the Clause. The next point in the Clause, where are Amendments which are in order, is page 2, line 20. Two Amendments have been handed in, very much to the same effect, in reference to that line of the Clause. I do not propose to call both of them. I shall call one which is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and other hon. Members—in Clause 1, page 2, mine 20, after the word "relief," to insert the words, to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment.

Mr. TRAIN

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words "to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment." In moving this Amendment, I take advantage of what the Minister of Health said yesterday: This Clause is not a major recommendation of the Bill; it is only an auxiliary recommendation, and it will be my duty to give the most particular attention to any detailed criticism of the Clause which may be advanced when we come to the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1932; col. 880, Vol. 270.] I need not remind the Committee that the Poor Law Act of 1845 stated that it was the duty of the relieving authority to provide adequate sustenance for the legal poor, and this generally is on a more adequate or generous scale than the transitional payments. As I am a Glasgow Member, I will take that city, which pays to a man with a wife and three children, in poor relief, 41s. 6d. per week, while a similar man on transitional payment would get 29s. 6d. If the Bill is passed in its present form, not only will the recipient of transitional payment benefit in a pension or compensation case, but the recipient of Poor Law relief will also benefit by the half of his pension or compensation, and thereby you will increase the anomaly. Supposing the pension is 100 per cent., or 40s., the recipient of Poor Law relief with a wife and three children will then have 61s. 6d. per week provided, while the transitional case would have 49s. 6d. Transitional payment to the able-bodied poor is intended to tide a man over his spell of idleness, while Poor Law relief is paid to persons who seldom have any outlook in life beyond their Poor Law relief. Consequently, the tendency is to be more generous to the latter class, in Glasgow at any rate.

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health last night gave the House an indication of the cost of including the Poor Law cases in the operation of the Bill, and he took as his factor of division the figure 4. According to the information in the possession of the De- partment of Health, the factor for ordinary able-bodied poor is not 4, but 1.8. In working out his figures, the right hon. Gentleman said the cost would only be £250,000. It is a very easy calculation, if the factor is 1.8, which I am informed is correct, to see that the amount mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman can be doubled, and that it will be £500,000 or more. The local authorities in Scotland ask that they should deal with similar classes of people in a similar fashion, and that the class which is not similar, namely, the disabled and the aged, should be differently treated according to the discretion of the local authorities.

We are told that the Clause is optional, but we know that the authorities will be forced to adopt it. Indeed, the very fact of its inclusion in an Act of Parliament is an invitation to them to adopt it, and if any authority should refuse, it would be thought to be mean or parsimonious. We have been told all along that this is a temporary Measure. Why upset the local authorities in the administration of the Poor Law? So far as I am aware, nobody is asking the Government to touch the Poor Law. This Bill is intended to equalise things and to cut out hardships. If we deal with the class of people that we mention in the Amendment, we shall deal with all that is necessary, but to introduce, in a temporary Measure of this kind, something that will upset the administration of all the local authorities is, I think, a great mistake, and I trust the Minister will give the Amendment his careful attention.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I am forced by your Ruling, Sir Dennis, to support this Amendment, although I should have preferred the Amendment that stands in my name, which would present fewer administrative difficulties than would the acceptance of this one. However, I do not wish to waste time by submitting that there is a real difference between the two Amendments, and I will confine myself to giving, in support of this Amendment, the reasons that I would have given in support of my own. The Amendment, as I read it, is an attempt to do exactly what the Minister said yesterday he wanted to do, namely, to extend the more generous treatment contained in the first Sub-section to those who have never been in insurance and are therefore not transitional risks, but who are otherwise on the same footing as the transitional risks. That, I submit, can be done by the limiting words which it is now proposed to put into Sub-section (2). As Sub-section (2) reads at present, it extends to all cases that come under the administration of the Poor Law. All cases that are dealt with by public assistance committees may be dealt with by them under the terms of the first Subsection, and the words which it is now sought to add: to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment, would limit the operation of the Bill to persons who, having never been in insurable employment, are not transitional risks. I would have preferred my own words, which were simply, "any able-bodied person," because that would not create a new class and would not create, therefore, the fresh administrative difficulties which the Minister might, quite fairly, say would be created by adding this separate class which is not now recognised in any English Act of Parliament.

I want to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) in moving the Amendment. Here you have an admittedly temporary Bill, a Measure to deal with temporary situation which will no doubt come to an end next June. In the Clause as it stands, you are in fact bringing about a vast and permanent change in the whole administration of the Poor Law. Undoubtedly there is a case for the revision of the Poor Law, but this is not the way to do it. To do it by a side-wind, in a Bill which deals, not with the revision of the Poor Law, but with an alteration in the conditions applicable to persons who apply for transitional payment, is, in my view, entirely the wrong way to do it.

Further, granting that it is desirable so to amend the Poor Law as to give effect to the earlier part of Clause 1, that is to say, to allow applicants for Poor Law relief to have these statutory deductions made in computing their means, you would have, in any Bill dealing with the subject, to provide money out of which the local authorities are to meet the added burdens which would be imposed upon them in dealing with general relief. According to the opinions which I can gather, the burdens which will be placed on local authorities, and which will result in increases in rates if this Subsection becomes law, are very considerable. The Minister gave a figure last night of £250,000, but even on the assumption that only the present applicants for outdoor relief would he the people to be considered, the legitimate fear of the local authorities is that this would open the door for a large increase in the applications and for applications to be made for relief from a class which at the present is not applying for outdoor relief at all. How real that fear is will become apparent when I remind the Committee of what, if the Sub-section is passed as it is, public assistance committees will have to deduct in cases that come before them. They will be at liberty to deduct one-half of any war pensions—

Mr. LAWSON

Your Amendment is to exclude them.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Not at all. They will be able to deduct in the case of all persons, whether they are able-bodied unemployed, old age pensioners, sick, infirm and so on, one-half of war pensions arid one-half of workmen's compensation. In addition to that, they will have to make statutory deductions of 5s. in respect of allowances from friendly societies, and 7s. 6d. in respect of any payments from the National Health Insurance. The net result is that any individual case in applications for out relief from sick, infirm and old people, may have a substantial amount which the public assistance committees will be at liberty, if this Sub-section becomes law, to ignore. An hon. Gentleman who interrupted implied that that was a good thing. I am not discussing whether it is or not. I say that if you are going to make an alteration of that kind, which obviously must open the door to a large number of persons who do not at present apply for outdoor relief, you must make provision for finance to enable the local authorities to deal with it. Otherwise, the result will be a heavy increase in the burden of the rates, and at present there is no provision whatever in the Measure for providing local authorities with the necessary means. That is the first criticism which induces me to support the Amendment for the purpose of limiting the operation of the Clause to able-bodied persons, which broadly covers the area of unemployed persons.

8.30 p.m.

There is a second matter. Does anybody imagine for a moment that this far-reaching alteration in the Poor Law will be temporary? The Bill is temporary, it is true, but it must be obvious that this alteration will be riveted upon the Poor Law without discussion or consultation with the local authorities and without any financial provision. The Minister's argument that if we do not carry the Subsection and if we introduce limiting words such as are proposed, we create new anomalies, is admitted. I do not think that even at the cost of that argument this ought to be done without taking the local authorities into consultation, finding out what the potential claims are likely to be, and introducing some measure to provide the finances in order that the local rates may not be increased for the purpose of financing this Subsection. The Minister speaks of anomalies, but does he imagine that even as it is the Clause does not permit anomalies? Under the Clause as it stands, the public assistance committee in one agricultural area can decide to take fully into account war pensions, workmen's compensation, capital accumulated as savings, houses and so on, while in a neighbouring jurisdiction a committee covering practically the same area is permitted to ignore those circumstances. So it is not a conclusive argument to say that this Amendment will create anomalies. They exist already under the Clause itself, and one must face the fact that in any circumstances an anomalous situation is going to be developed. By this Clause as it stands, we are making a far-reaching alteration in the Poor Law which will be permanent and which will deprive the Minister of the existing power of preventing local authorities from taking large stuns of money into account in the ease of the destitute and the old and infirm, and it will open the door to the introduction of a large number of claims upon the Poor Law which will result in the increasing of rates. This ought not to be done by a side wind in this way but by a Measure dealing with rates.

Sir F. ACLAND

I do not want to deal with the merits of the question, for I do not think it is in anyone's mind to modify in this Bill the whole basis of the Poor Law. I want to make a point in regard to the wording of the Amendment. If the Amendment is adopted, it shall be lawful, in granting outdoor relief to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment under the enactments relating to the Poor Law, to observe all or any of the rules required those rules being rules which enable persons to be dealt with who are not destitute at all. The word "destitute" would prevent anyone coming up under this Sub-section and being treated in the way which the Sub-section intends. It intends that one of the rules that may he observed is that a certain allowance may be made when the value of the investments runs up even to £300. The person who has £300 in the bank is not a destitute person technically under the Poor Law. Therefore, it seems to me that if this Amendment is meant to mean what the Movers of it mean it to mean, they ought not to put in the word "destitute" because by implication it cuts out people a priori from any consideration of their case.

Duchess of ATHOLL

My name appears to the Amendment which has been called, and I wish to say that in the last few moments, since my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) so very well put his case, I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) who moved the Amendment, and he authorises me to say that he does not wish the word "destitute" to be a stumbling block. It is a word that has always been in use in Scotland in regard to those applying for public assistance, but he recognises that in the new circumstances provided for in the Bill the word might not be appropriate in all cases. Therefore, he does not wish to insist on it. I think that my hon. and learned Friend and I really mean the same thing, and that the two Amendments are to the same purpose. I feel it difficult to add much to what my hon. and learned Friend has so well said, but perhaps I may be allowed to add a word from the Scottish point of view. It occurred to me at the outset in looking at the Bill, that it was inappropriate to make a big change in the present Poor Law of Scotland by a side wind.

The very first lines of the Bill indicate that it is to amend an Unemployment Insurance Act, and therefore the matters dealt with in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 appear to be dragged in. In Scotland, as in England, the Poor Law, or, as I much prefer to call it, the system of public assistance, has its roots deep down in the past. For centuries we have had some system of that kind. It has improved as time has gone on, and I do not venture to suggest that it could stand no more improvement, but I do say very strongly that a question of this magnitude, affecting the lives of thousands of people under such a very old system, should not have this alteration made in. it not only by a Bill which is brought forward to amend an insurance Act but by a Bill which is being rushed through Parliament, with a speed that seems to be almost unparalleled, as far as my Parliamentary experience goes. Further, it is a Bill which is admittedly only a temporary one. As my hon. and learned Friend has so well said, more generous terms given in a temporary Bill can with difficulty be taken back in a more permanent Measure. It seems to me that we are making these changes with really indecent haste.

Further, I suggest that this is a most unseasonable time at which to make changes of this magnitude in the system of public assistance. Unfortunately, we are living in a time of unparalleled financial difficulty, when the Government have found it necessary not only to make drastic economies in various Government Departments but to press every possible economy with great insistence on the local authorities; yet this is the time when, as I venture to say, with indecent haste, without any time for real consultation with the local authorities, and without making any provision for giving them additional assistance in view of the additional burdens which may be cast upon them, the Government come forward to rush these changes through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart gave some figures relating to Glasgow, and other figures for that city were given by another hon. Friend of mine. I am not sure whether it has been made clear to the House that representatives of the Glasgow Corporation have said that, so far as they can estimate it, the extra charge which will be thrown on the city of Glasgow in respect of those already on the roll and the members of their families will be no less than £75,000 a year, and that is exclusive of additional charges that will have to be met on account of the additional numbers who will be brought on to the roll by these proposals.

Unquestionably, therefore, this Subsection will make a very heavy addition to the expenditure on public assistance in Glasgow at a time when the Glasgow Corporation have a special committee sitting to see what economies can be made. Is it fair to put local authorities up and down the country in that position? Can they believe that the Government are in earnest about the economies which they have stated publicly they are so anxious to secure? Further, it has been said that there is no public demand for this change in the Poor Law of Scotland. It was very justly put forward yesterday by representatives of the chief cities of Scotland that those who receive relief in Scotland under the Poor Law Act, 1845, have a right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the help they receive, and we were told that whereas the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee deal with hundreds of cases every week only about six in a week appeal against the assistance allotted to them, and usually the appeals are not on the question of the amount of out relief given but against their having been given assistance by way of indoor relief.

Then, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart pointed out, it is the practice of the Glasgow Corporation to give higher allowances to the legal poor than the able-bodied get, or than unemployment or transitional benefit. In Glasgow a man with a wife and five children, if he is one of the legal poor, gets 47s. 6d. a week, whereas a man with a wife and the same number in family who is in receipt of unemployment benefit gets 33s. 3d., and a man in receipt of transitional benefit who has been assessed for full benefit gets the same amount. The average wage in Glasgow is said to be not more than 36s. Therefore, those in Glasgow who come under the description of the legal poor are in a distinctly more favourable position than the unemployed, whether insured or whether uninsured. I cannot say whether that is the case in other areas, because there has not been time to ascertain it.

This proposal in regard to the legal poor would probably also throw a considerable burden on rural areas, because, if an able-bodied person loses his employment in a rural area he is likely to drift to a town in search of work, and if he needs relief there he will have to get it from the public assistance committee of the town to which he has gone. I understand there is a possibility that areas in which there is much unemployment may get a larger block grant in respect of the additional burden this Bill proposes to throw upon them, but that additional assistance will not come to the rural areas, because they do not have much unemployment. There is very little work there, and if a man loses his employment in a rural area he is likely to go to a town.

Mr. LOGAN

Did I understand the Noble Lady to say that the average wages of those who are in work in Glasgow is 36s. a week?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Yes.

Mr. LOGAN

If that be so, is it your intention, because Poor Law relief is 41s. ad., that that amount be reduced to below the level of their earning capacity?

Duchess of ATHOLL

No, there is no question of that, and the hon. Member has not got the figure correctly. The figure I gave for a man with a wife and five children was 47s. 6d. a week—40s. of pay and 7s. 6d. for rent. There is no question of reducing anybody.

Mr. LOGAN

The figure I quoted was for a man with a wife and three children. It was quoted earlier in the Debate.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Yes, but I was quoting the case of a man with a wife and five children, and therefore the hon. Member's interruption was not quite to the point. This Rill will throw an unknown and possibly a considerable burden upon rural areas without offering them any hope of the additional grant which, I understand, may inure to town areas where there is considerable unemployment. But we Scottish Members feel that the able-bodied unemployed stand in a somewhat different category from the ordinary poor. It is only in recent years that they have become eligible for relief. Therefore, their records have been kept entirely dis- tinct from the records of the ordinary poor, and their pay sheets are entirely separate. There is a case, we feel, for giving them the benefit of the additional allowances that the Bill would give to those who are upon transitional benefit. Some of us know only too well that these are days of increasing unemployment among agricultural labourers and those who work upon landed estates. We would not wish to stand in the way of those men receiving the additional allowances that the Bill proposes to give, and therefore we have moved this Amendment which will make the able-bodied poor, but not the ordinary poor, eligible for those allowances.

Mr. O'CONNOR

On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the Noble Lady's speech, you would be prepared to accept the withdrawal of this Amendment and to call mine? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has ruled against this Amendment as a practical proposition.

The CHAIRMAN

The question of the withdrawal of the Amendment is in the hands of the Committee. I suggest that the point might be met by a proposal to amend the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Member who has just put the question to me cared to propose an Amendment to the Amendment, in order to leave out the word "destitute," I think possibly that that might meet the case.

Sir F. ACLAND

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "destitute."

I do so in order that the Committee may be able to discuss the subject that it wishes to discuss.

Sir J. LAMB

May I second that Amendment?

Mr. LANSBURY

Would you kindly read the Amendment as it will be if amended?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee was to insert the words: to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment. The proposed Amendment to that Amendment is "to leave out the word 'destitute.'" If that Amendment were made, the Amendment which would then be before the Committee would be: to insert the words: to able-bodied persons out of employment.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am sorry, but we shall probably have a number of hon. Members getting up to speak, and we are likely to be in for a discussion. I have heard part of it. I want to bring the Committee back to reality. By the Act passed 12 months ago, persons applying for transitional benefit are put under the public assistance committees. They come willy-nilly under the destitution test of the Poor Law, without any question. Mere transfer to the public assistance committee puts them under the Poor Law destitution test. That is one thing. The Government have to some extent amended that, or they propose to do so by this Bill. The proposition in Subsection (2) of Clause l is that public assistance committees should have the power, which would not be obligatory upon them, I understand, to give the same right to non-insured persons as are possessed by persons who have been insured but who have run out of insurance.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, but I am quite sure that he will realise that he ought to confine his remarks to the question of the Amendment to the Amendment which is as to whether the word "destitute" should be in the proposed words or not.

Mr. LANSBURY

It may be very awkward to argue that case. It is a much broader question than that.

The CHAIRMAN

May I make a suggestion to the Committee? I do not think there is very much difficulty. Possibly the Committee will be prepared to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, and there could then be a discussion upon the Amendment. If that is the general view of the Committee—

Mr. BATEY

Let us hear what the Minister says.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young)

I understand that the suggestion of the Chairman would be acceptable for the convenience of the Committee, without prejudice to the major issue.

Mr. BUCHANAN

That does not prejudice a further Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

It would be open to the Committee to consider the amended Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY

The Committee is dealing here with the principle of whether to include a destitute able-bodied person or an ordinary able-bodied person. I do not know how a person who is not destitute can be dealt with—perhaps some lawyer will tell me, and I say this quite respectfully—by a public assistance authority. I want to bring that point home to the Committee, because that is the crux of our opposition to this matter. If the Committee is going to say that a public assistance committee shall not take into account destitution, well, good luck! We shall support that with all our strength, because that is an alteration of the Poor Law for which I have been fighting for a very long time. It will, if it is carried, smash up all this family-income business. The reason for the family income being taken into account is that the persons who apply must be living under conditions of destitution. If the applicant is living in a family with means, it is regarded as the moral duty of the family to take care of that person. That it all wrong—quite wrong. If this is agreed to, I want it to apply not only to a man who is able-bodied but one who happens to be sick. If you put in the able-bodied—

Sir F. ACLAND

We shall come back to that shortly when the word "destitute" is dealt with.

Mr. LANSBURY

I can only deal with the Amendment that is before the Committee. I expect that the Chairman will pull me up again if I start dealing with something with which the Amendment does not deal.

Mr. O'CONNOR

So far as I understand it, we are at the present moment discussing a purely technical position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was not here when it was pointed out that the word "destitute" in this Amendment made it futile, and of no effect. It is now proposed as an Amendment to leave out that word in order that the Committee may consider an Amendment which is in the same terms. The Amendment which I have later on the Order Paper does, at any rate, make sense. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Committee's view to be taken on this question, all his arguments will be perfectly germane on the main point.

Mr. LANSBURY

It may be that I am very dense, but I do not understand that the deletion of the word "destitute" from the Amendment makes any difference to the Poor Law as it is at present administered. The Poor Law as at present administered—and this is our whole charge—says that a person must be destitute before he can have any public assistance. That is the law as it is laid down by the Ministry of Health. I do not believe that they have any legal justification for it, but it has grown up, and, if any means are available to a person, he is not destitute according to the Orders and Rules under which public assistance is administered. Therefore, it does not matter whether the word "destitute" is left in or not; the position remains the same. If people go to the public assistance committee, they are dealt with there as destitute persons.

Sir F. ACLAND

No.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am going to stick to my point, because I know as much about this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. He has served under four Ministries, but I have served for 42 years as a Poor Law guardian, and know what I am talking about. I know that, if people go to the public assistance committee, they will, unless the House tonight changes it, be dealt with as destitute persons, or they will not be dealt with at all. My point is that it will be an iniquity if this Amendment is limited to able-bodied persons only. [Interruption.] I will sit down if somebody will tell me that it is not limited in that way.

9.0 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND

This is a Clause which tries to extend the relief that may be given under the Poor Law. I have not yet understood whether it is the desire of the Government that the Poor Law shall be relaxed in all cases, but, at any rate, the Amendment as originally moved proposed to confine the relaxation to certain cases. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right in saying that at present the Poor Law deals only with destitute persons, but this Clause, if it is carried, will surely mean that persons may be relieved even if they are not destitute—even if they have £300. The Clause as it stands represents a broadening of the area of the Poor Law and a broadening of the relief that may be given. Words were moved to limit that, and those words, as I maintain, are not only limiting words, but really make it impossible to broaden the Poor Law for any class, because, if you say it shall be lawful, in granting outdoor relief to destitute able-bodied uemployed, to make these relaxations, they will have to come within the class of destitute able-bodied unemployed before any relaxation can be made. My Amendment, by leaving out the word "destitute," would at any rate broaden the area of the possible relaxation. The Government may desire, when we come back to discuss the whole Amendment, to have the area of relaxation so broadened as to extend to everyone, but, at any rate, my proposal would make it possible, by leaving out the word "destitute," for the Clause to mean something, and at any rate to broaden to some extent the area of the people who may be relieved, whereas it may be that the Government want it broadened so as to embrace everyone under the Poor Law. It was pointed out, and I think, if I may say so, that the ruling is correct, that, with the word "destitute" left in, it is really technically impossible to broaden the area, that is to say, to deal with people who are no longer technically destitute. We all want to broaden it, and, if the word "destitute" is left in, we shall not be able to do so.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am not asking that the word "destitute" should be left in—

Sir F. ACLAND

That is the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY

I understand that we are being allowed to discuss it—[Interruption]—that we only took this point in order that we might get on with the discussion. I understood that we were discussing the whole Amendment, and that it was taken in this way to enable Members to state their views.

The CHAIRMAN

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We are not at the moment discussing the whole Amendment. We cannot discuss the Amendment as a whole until we have got rid of this small proposed Amendment to it.

Mr. LANSBURY

There was a proposal to put in the word "destitute"—

Mr. O'CONNOR

With other words.

Mr. LANSBURY

With other words; and then it was proposed that the word "destitute" should be left out, and we agreed for the purposes of discussion—

Mr. O'CONNOR

No.

Mr. LANSBURY

I understood that we did.

The CHAIRMAN

That is why I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman once before. It seems to me that he is assuming that the Committee have amended the Amendment, but they have not done so; there has not been an opportunity of putting that question to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him aright, wishes now to go back to the discussion of the whole Amendment when it has been amended by leaving out the word "destitute."

Mr. LANSBURY

I do not mind so long as the Committee can get into a position in which we shall be allowed to discuss the matter.

Mr. BATEY

I should like the Committee to understand clearly the meaning of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It seems to me that the Movers of the original Amendment have been caught in their own net. They have moved an Amendment to insert the words: destitute able-bodied persons out of employment. Their intention is clear. It is to confine the concessions which it is proposed to grant to people in receipt of transitional benefit to able-bodied poor only. We do not want them to be so confined; we want them to be given to the destitute as well; and I think we ought to divide the Committee on the question of the deletion of the word "destitute" from the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN

An Amendment has been moved to insert the words: destitute able-bodied persons. At the present time a person who makes application for Poor Law relief must be destitute, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated. The point is that now the Government are extending the procedure to three classes, but they must still be destitute. The Government now are saying, in effect, that a person can be destitute even although he has £300. It is no use superior people shaking their heads; that is what it means. Transitional payment is Poor Law relief on a national scale, and, to get Poor Law relief on a national scale a person must he destitute. Destitution applies to State relief as well as to local relief. The Bill makes no sense if you amend the Amendment, because it demolishes in the most effective fashion your original position that it is State relief. If it is State relief, you have no right to grant it to these people, because they are not destitute—either that or it is not State relief. I often feel ashamed of my race when I see the meanness of Scottish people. I have seen nearly every wage-cutting movement come from employers who are Scottish. It is a shameful and a shocking thing.

The two main classes are those with disability pensions and workmen's compensation. The other class will not be covered much by it. A man has a disability pension of 30s. a week for himself. If he is fit and able-bodied, he is allowed to retain 15s. and to get 15s. 3d. If he is a sick ex-service man, he gets the Poor Law scale, which is a week in Glasgow, so that he gets 10s. 3d. less. Can anyone defend that? The Government say that they give power to the local authorities to do this if they want to do it, though there may be cases where they do not want to do it, and no one compels them to do it. We ought to have the power to say that a sick ex-service man shall be no less well off than an able-bodied ex-service man. Is there anything unfair in that? Would anyone say that a person who is sick and has workmen's compensation is to be any less well off than another who is able-bodied? The labour market is over-weighted and that type should not be forced on to it. The hon. Member is going to push sick men on to the labour market. If a man with a 30s. pension is certified sick by the Poor Law doctor, he will go to his panel doctor and worry him to certify him able so that he can get 10s. more. An able-bodied man with a pension of £1 will get 10s., plus 15s. 3d., which is 25s. 3d., whereas, if he is sick, he will only get £1 and he will be 5s. 3d. worse off. Can the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) deny it? A deputation came and made an appeal to a number of hon. Members opposite. I am one of a small group, but, whatever is said of me, I have applied myself to my work. I have tried to understand the Poor Law and the methods of the Employment Exchanges. Someone is needed to defend the so-called wastrels and so long as I am here I will defend what are supposed to be the very bad ones. The deputation came and saw Conservative Members, but they would not see me. I am not sure about the £75,000, neither is the Noble Lady. She has no facts on which to base her conclusions.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I said it was an estimate made by responsible people.

Mr. BUCHANAN

You have an estimate from the people who want to kill the Clause. Do you think people who are going to kill the Clause would make it £10,000? Of course, they will make it £75,000 to kill it. They want to kill the thing, and they have to make their case. If they think you know nothing about it, they will tell you anything they like. They would not tell that to the Ministry of Health, who could examine the figures. I ask the Committee not to carry this Amendment. To place a sick ex-service man in a worse condition than an able-bodied ex-service man is an anomaly of which no one can approve. It may be that we are making an innovation and that it is being done by means of a side wind, but, apart from that fact, it should be remembered that the Measure will only operate until June of next year, after which a new law will come into effect. Therefore, let us have the experience of working this Measure, and, whatever the Government do on this occasion, they should at least see that the Bill remains as it is and that it is given a genuine try out. We should not listen to these extraordinary figures. They may be right or they may be wrong.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I have finished now. As far as destitution is concerned, the Amendment about which there is all the squabbling really does not affect the matter. I make no apology for repeating what the Leader of the Opposition said before the Bill was brought in, that a man had to be destitute in order to get transitional payment. What has happened is that the term "destitute" has been extended so as not to apply to three classes. Instead of juggling with the question of whether the word "destitute" should be in or out those who are responsible for the Measure should proceed to pass it.

Mr. LANSBURY

Cannot we agree to take out the word "destitute" so that we can discuss the Amendment?

Mr. BATEY

No.

Mr. LANSBURY

If we do not take it out we cannot discuss the Amendment. I understand that you can only withdraw one Amendment at a time. I wish to discuss the main Amendment. If hon. Members want to vote, let us vote, but do not let us go on all night.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

I agree that the Debate has ranged over a wide field, and I regret that there is no Law Officer of the Crown on the Front Bench to give us some information as to the actual law so far as England and Wales is concerned. The word "destitute" in the Amendment does not affect the position so far as Scotland is concerned. I wish to know whether the law in England and Wales is such that a man must be destitute before he can receive Poor Law relief. If the law is as I understand it, I think that as far as England and Wales is concerned the word "destitute" should come out. I hope that someone on the Front Bench will be able to get up and tell us authoritatively the law regarding England and Wales and if it makes any difference to England and Wales whether the word "destitute" remains in or not?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)

As far as we are concerned in England, the addition of the word "destitute" makes no difference. The Sub-section of the Clause runs: It shall he lawful, in granting outdoor relief. These words are only in respect of destitute persons, and to add the word "destitute" in front of the words "able bodied" in the Amendment is sheer redundancy. Therefore, I suggest, in order to facilitate discussion on the main Amendment, which we all want, that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment should be withdrawn.

Sir F. ACLAND

After the authoritative statement of the hon. Gentleman, which differed very much from another authoritative statement which I obtained in the House, I wish, of course, to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I moved it in order to enable the Clause to be widened. I was afraid that if the Amendment was carried it would make it impossible in England to give any relaxation of the Poor Law. I am now assured that that is not so, and I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

Mr. LANSBURY

I hope very much that the limiting Amendment will not be carried. If it is carried it will mean that only the men out of work will get the advantage which the other men are getting. It will mean that only able-bodied unemployed men who are not and never have been insured will be able to get the advantages of the rest of the Act. I wish to join in the appeal made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was trying to make the appeal but I was ruled out of order—[Interruption.] As long as the appeal has been made it is all right, but I wish to emphasise it, because I know that if the public assistance authorities in London have this power it will prove a very great blessing to many people. I think that I should have tried to persuade my friends to vote for the Bill if the money for the purpose of this Clause was to have been found by the Treasury, because I know that then it would have been operative throughout the country. Local authorities, when money is found by the Treasury, as a rule spend it on the object for which it is voted, but when we knew that this was to be permissive we realised that there would be the opposition which has been voiced here to-day. It is a rather mean opposition because it is against the most helpless of the people.

I do not want to give individual cases, but it means definitely that if you limit this Clause you leave out the sick, the aged, and the partially disabled persons and put them into the category of Poor Law destitution, which is something this House would not consciously do. If you are to do a generous thing by the able-bodied, surely to goodness you will not do a less generous thing to those who are more helpless. That is the position with which the Amendment really has to deal. On the question of money, if there is a local authority which will face its electors on this subject, it need not even give the money to the agricultural labourer or to the railway worker. If it feels that money is so important, it need not give it to the disabled or to anybody, because the matter is purely permissive. If the local authorities are so sure that public opinion in their areas is against it, they will never act upon it.

I cannot see why the Clause should not stand as it is. If you limit it in this way, you will make the Bill much more pernicious. If it had been affirmative and they must do it, and the money had been found by the Treasury, I repeat that I should have felt inclined to have begged of my hon. Friends to vote for the Bill, even though the rest of it was as bad in some respects as we think it is. This is really something which, if the local authorities will operate it, will help the sick, the aged, and all kinds of people who at present are only living from hand to mouth. I do not know what the Government will say about it. I hope that they will stick to their guns, and not give way on this. Poor people, apart altogether from the ex-service people, are in a bad enough way, but the ex-service people and those who are sick, or who are suffering from any disability, ought not to be forced on to the Poor Law. I think it is a disgrace to the country that any ex-service men should have to go to the Poor Law at all under any sort of conditions. They have earned some better treatment than that, but if this is carried you are going to leave those who are least able to defend themselves in a worse position than the able-bodied.

Let me say one word about this destitution business. It is no use our saying to the public assistance commit- tees what they can or cannot do because, with the audit law as it is at present, the auditor has the last word on the subject. I know from experience that auditors take the view that there must be sheer destitution, and many of them in England do not give remission of the health insurance money or the health benefit society money that the law lays down. They find reason for saying that you have taken something into account which balances, or rather writes off the relief that the Act of Parliament gives. I am speaking of what I know of London, and. I am confident that they take everything into account, as is shown by the letter of the chairman of the public assistance committee in London, which appeared in the "Times." He put the case a few, days ago absolutely clearly, namely, that you have to see that the applicant has not got anything in his pocket. The result is that when the disabled person goes to the public assistance authorities, his pension and the pensions of those living in the house with him or any other income is taken into account.

You are asking that that shall be struck out only for the able-bodied. I beg the Committee not to do so mean a thing. I do not believe there is anyone who wants consciously to do anything mean to these people, but the Committee will be doing a very mean thing indeed if they carry the Amendment that is being discussed now. I repeat that the Committee is not compelling local authorities to do this, but only giving them the right to do it if the ratepayers in their district back them up. I believe that the overwhelming number of ratepayers, direct and indirect, would cheerfully pay this money in order that the sick and disabled might have a better chance.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID

I should not venture for a moment to support this Amendment if it meant mean or shabby treatment to anybody, and we rather resent the accusation that because we wish to do things in a businesslike and not an un-businesslike manner we are therefore being mean or shabby. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Poor Law has stood in exactly the same position for the last 12 years. Both the able-bodied and the people who are not able- bodied have been under the present disability during two Labour Governments and not one word was said for bettering their lot. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) issued his Circular on this very point in regard to the Poor Law in 1930. It was read by the Minister of Labour last night, and there is not one word about the concessions which are now being given. It does not lie in the mouths of others to reproach us with meanness when we are at least taking away a part of the grievances which have existed without anything being done by their Government. This matter has got to be tackled in a businesslike way, and in two halves. The first half of it deals with the able-bodied who are in the same position, to all intents and purposes, as the people who are getting transitional payment. The whole justification which was put forward by the Minister of Health for making any change at all was founded on the case of these able-bodied poor. Not one word was said about any injustice of any kind being suffered by anybody who was not able-bodied.

Therefore, the immediate problem is to deal with the able-bodied. They can be dealt with at present quite easily, because we hope they will ultimately be taken out of the Poor Law altogether, and accordingly any temporary modification of the Poor Law can be dropped as soon a