Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1948/apr/20/national-assistance-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:04:29+00:00

Document:
§ LORD CHORLEY moved in subsection (3), at the beginning to insert: For the purpose of securing the prompt discharge of their functions under this Act.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment with the object of meeting an undertaking which was given in another place to amplify the provision as it at present stands in order to provide for regulations. It is intended to speed things up. I beg to move.
As the noble Lord said, this Amendment was promised in another place, and we are entirely in favour of it. We think it is an improvement in the language of the clause, and we gladly support it.
This is consequential upon the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Perhaps this would be a convenient point to raise a matter to which I drew attention on Second Reading, and to explain what has passed upon that subject in conversations which the noble Lord opposite has courteously arranged between some of us on this side and himself and his own advisers. The Bill establishes the National Assistance Board as responsible for the financing of these services, covering 500,000 people throughout the country. The object of that, as we all know, is to do away with the taint and 163 stigma of the Poor Law system and, we hope, to give a more efficient handling of all these questions so important to the people involved.
Anxiety has been expressed on three points in regard to the functions indicated in this clause. In the first place, in doing away with the taint of the Poor Law, with which we entirely agree, we are anxious that there shall be no loss of the human contact or of the human touch which has been established so successfully by many of the existing local assistance committees, Poor Law guardians and relieving officers. All that is swept away, and we are most anxious to ensure that all the experience and knowledge of the human touch established by these committees shall not be lost to the new system. That is one point. The second point is that, inasmuch as these services are now being divided between two different types of authority—the financial control going to the National Assistance Board and the administration of the institutions, hostels and training establishments to the local authorities—we are anxious that there should be no overlapping or lack of co-operation amongst the two types of authority which will be set up. The third point is that we are anxious about the loss of the services which so many relieving officers throughout the country, who have a very great knowledge and experience of this work, have given.
These points were not raised for the first time in this House. They were raised with very great emphasis by practically all those experienced in this type of social work who spoke during the passage of the Bill through another place. We felt that there was a great deal of force in what was said there, which, indeed, was supported in many ways by our own experience. It was for this reason I made the suggestion that it might be possible to use the same committees for advising the National Assistance Board and its officers and for carrying out the local authorities' functions established under this Bill. I thought that that might be a way of combining the two sides of the new service to make certain that in that way the most experienced people, with their skilled officers, would still be carrying on their work. Thanks to the noble Lord, I was able to discuss that possibility with him and with his 164 advisers. I am grateful to him for the pains that he took to enable us to go thoroughly into this suggestion.
Two objections arise with regard to it. One is that the functions of the committees to be set up by the National Assistance Board will be entirely advisory, whereas the functions of the committees to be set up by the local authorities will be administrative. There was the difficulty of combining administrative and advisory functions in the same committee. I can see that there is a certain amount of force in that, although, of course, there are committees which have advisory functions in some respects and executive functions in others. That objection would not have swayed me very much. A further objection, however, seems to me to be unanswerable—that it would be difficult for the local authorities to accept these committees as their executive committees, with authority to involve them in considerable expenditure. Local authorities would be reluctant to give such powers to committees which they had not themselves appointed. And these would be committees appointed by the National Assistance Board: the local authorities would certainly be consulted, but they would not be able to appoint their committees. I can see that there is a great force in that argument. For that reason, we on this side do not desire to press the suggestion which was made on Second Reading—that these committees should be combined. The Amendment which I had drafted does not appear on the Order Paper and it will not be moved.
Of course, as was said of the proposals contained in the Children Bill, everything will depend upon administration. For my part, and I think this applies to noble Lords in all quarters of this House, I have great confidence in the Assistance Board. When they first took over their work, great doubts were expressed as to their capacity for carrying out the duties entrusted to them, but they have triumphantly shown that they can overcome all those objections, and that they are capable of dealing with these matters in a sympathetic and acceptable manner. I believe they will do the same in regard to the new functions which they will assume under this Bill. On this side of the House, we wish them well. At the same time, I should like to see introduced into this clause an Amendment such as was introduced at the instance of another 165 place in Clause 2, giving more emphasis to the point that the Board must have the maximum local advice from those who are members of the old committees. If the noble Lord would give consideration to that suggestion, we might perhaps have an opportunity of discussing it, and something could be done on Third Reading. I suggest an Amendment on the lines of that already accepted on Clause 2.
That is all I have to say, except once again to express the regret which we on this side of the House feel—and I am sure that everybody feels—at the fact that the existing relieving officers will all disappear under this Bill. I do not know how many of them there are in the country; it must be 1,100 or so. No doubt, the best of them will be taken over by the National Assistance Board, although I suppose the Board will not take more than 200 or 300, however many local branches may be set up. Some of the officers may be absorbed into different work under the local authorities, but it will not be the kind of work that they have hitherto been doing so well. On this occasion, knowing the remarkable work that the relieving officers have been doing for many years past, and realising that they will now cease to exist, I feel that we ought to express appreciation of that work, coupled with a hope that as many as possible will find a place doing that same work under the new administrative system which this Bill establishes. I would merely add my agreement with what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said just now. I believe that much is gained by the courtesy which the Government always show in discussing these matters between the stages of a Bill in this House. I have certainly profited by the help that the noble Lord opposite has given me in that respect, and we are always glad to co-operate in that way. I wish this clause all success, but I would ask the noble Lord opposite to give me, if he can, an assurance on the point which I have raised.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the friendly way in which he referred to the discussions that have taken place elsewhere, and for the very fair and perfectly true presentation of the discussions which he has submitted to the House. There are just two points to which I would like to refer. First of all I should like to 166 associate those on these Benches with the tribute which the noble Lord was good enough to pay to the relieving officers. We hope that the services of as many as possible will be utilised in connection with this work, and if not with this work then in connection with work of a kindred nature. With regard to the suggestion which the noble Lord made about subsection (2) of Clause 3—namely to give a little more emphasis to the use of local advice—he will naturally not expect me to answer at this moment; but I am always ready, as noble Lords know, to take back suggestions for consideration. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that his suggestion will be considered between now and Report stage, and if necessary we can consult again later.
§ Determination of need for assistance.
§ (2) The Minister of National Insurance shall in accordance with the provisions of the next following section make regulations as to the computation of requirements and resources for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and in deciding any such question as aforesaid the Board shall give effect to the relevant provisions of the regulations.
§ (3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes of cases, and in particular shall make special provision for blind persons and persons who have suffered a loss of income in order to undergo treatment for tuberculosis of the respiratory system.
This is a Government Amendment designed to secure that the regulations to be made by the Minister of National Insurance for the purposes of the clause shall not merely cover the computation of requirements and the computation of resources, which is what it docs as drafted at present, but that it shall proceed to say how a person's reed shall be determined (which is obviously a matter of considerable importance), in the light of those computations. The Amendment has been drafted in older to secure that that shall be done. I beg to move.
We on this side of the House think this is an excellent Amendment, and we are glad to support it.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3) to delete "of the respiratory system." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the types of tuberculosis, which is a matter that has already been considered to some extent in another place. There are two points in regard to this question. The first is whether it is right and desirable that grants shall be made to those who suffer from tuberculosis, other than that of the respiratory system specified in the Bill, so that they can obtain curative treatment and return to full earning power. I hope it will be generally admitted that that is desirable and right. If that is so, there is this further question which arises—namely, whether in the way in which the clause is worded this can be achieved by regulation, which is the claim of the Minister.
§ The clause specifies strictly that before grants are made the tuberculosis has to be of a certain type. It may be argued that, having included those limiting words, Parliament must have intended that the particular provisions of this subsection should not be extended to the other types of tuberculosis where I think grants are so necessary—particularly, perhaps, tuberculosis of the bones. The suggestion is that those regulations can define, apply and limit the application of that clause, and lay down the type of treatment which qualifies for grant, and that in itself the clause is not wide enough; and it cannot be widened by regulation. If the Minister relies on the regulations under Clause 4, or earlier parts of Clause 5, then I do not follow why the special provisions of the second half of this subsection were put in at all. There is a doubt about it, and I think it is a doubt that should be cleared up. I believe that the best way to clear it up is by omitting the words that I have suggested should be omitted. Alternatively, it might be possible to add after the words "in particular" some words to this effect: "that this shall be without prejudice in any way to the general powers of the Minister under the Bill." I beg to move.
The reason for the limitation of the special provision lies in the fact that, from a medical point of view, tuberculosis of the respiratory system is to be distinguished from any other disease in its nature and effects, whereas tuberculosis of the non-respiratory or surgical type cannot be thus differentiated from other surgical disabilities of a similar character. It would be difficult to justify giving special assistance to persons with non-respiratory tuberculosis while denying it to persons incapacitated by other forms of comparable disability. A principal object of the special provision for persons found to have tuberculosis of the respiratory system is to make it easier for them to leave work and undertake early treatment, not only in their own interests but also to avoid infecting their fellow workers and others. This risk arises especially, and almost entirely, as regards tuberculosis of the respiratory system; in non-respiratory cases it is, by comparison, almost negligible.
The fundamental justification for the special provision for the tuberculosis contained in Clause 5 (3) is that it is necessary as part of the measures to combat tuber-oulosis of the respiratory system as a community disease, in terms both of public health and national economy. In neither character nor prevalence can tuberculosis of the non-respiratory type be regarded in the same category. It is true that an Amendment of a similar character was moved in another place, I think on Committee stage, and there was there some question as to whether the original term "pulmonary tuberculosis" included tuberculosis of the larynx. On recommitment of the Bill, a Government Amendment was moved and accepted to leave out "pulmonary tuberculosis" and insert "tuberculosis of the respiratory system," and this left no room for uncertainty that the laryngeal type of case is within the scope of the subsection. If the noble Lord has read, as no doubt he has, the discussions in another place, I think he will agree that this Amendment was regarded as substantially meeting the doubts expressed about the limited meaning of the original term. In those circumstances, I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
I am sorry the noble Lord takes that view. I think the other Amendment was certainly an improvement, though I am not sure it was 169 satisfactory. I think the whole point is whether non-pulmonary tuberculosis really falls into the same category as certain other diseases which were covered by the regulations. But the doubt which I have raised, and in which confident observers have said there is some point, is that because the words are so strictly defined it is not certain whether any form of tuberculosis other than that under the subsection can be included, even under the wider provisions that may deal with such a disease as cancer, which was also referred to during the Committee stage in another place. I hope there is no such doubt. The question having been raised, perhaps it may be worth being quite sure before the Bill passes this House. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
§ Disqualifications for assistance grants.
§ Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of work otherwise than under a contract of service where the earning power of the person engaged in the work is, by reason of a disability, substantially reduced in comparison with that of other persons similarly occupied.
§ LORD CHORLEY moved in the proviso to subsection (1), after "not," to insert: where regulations of the Board so provide, apply until the expiration of such time from the beginning of the engagement as may be prescribed by the regulations. (2) The last foregoing subsection shall not ".
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been drafted in order to overcome a difficulty which is incidental to the application of the general principle which is embodied in the clause—namely, that assistance is not to be granted to a person who is in receipt of a full-time wage for full-time work. Very often—indeed one hopes in nearly all these cases—a man who is receiving assistance because he is in difficulties through being unemployed gets full-time work. But there is an interval, of course, between his first 170 receipt of wages and his starting work. In the ordinary way, a man will be employed on a weekly basis, so he will not receive his first payment until the end of his first week's work in his new job. As the clause is at present drafted, that first week would have to be taken into account in regard to the assistance payment, and the man would clearly be in a difficulty. In order to solve the problem, which, as I have indicated, will arise only during the initial stage of a man's new employment, we have devised this Amendment, which we consider will ensure that a man will not be put in any such difficulty. I beg to move.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to omit "otherwise than under a contract of service." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns matters which were also, I think, discussed in another place. It will be seen that the general effect of Clause 9 is that no assistance grant will be made to a person who is engaged in remunerative full-time work. But the proviso does not apply where the earning power is less than normal or is insufficient for the requirements of the person concerned, taking into full account his physical disability. The Minister emphasised in another place that this was to provide for blind and other handicapped people who work on their own account, tuning pianos, for instance, or doing other things. The Minister did not, I think, explain why the provision "otherwise than under a contract of service" was put in; he indicated only hat he would look into the matter.
§ The explanation given on the Third Reading seems to have been rather brief. I certainly did not follow the reason. If members of the Committee will think about this matter they will realise that there must be many cases where men are employed under contracts of service and are working for someone else just as, perhaps, they may be basket making or doing some other work on their own. It may well be that, because of the need of more machinery, or the period of time they can work, or the extent of their disability, they cannot earn the full amount. This passage becomes all the more difficult to 171 understand if we turn to Clause 28 (4) (c). We see there that a local authority can provide workshops for the employment of such people either under contract of service or otherwise. There seems no reason to differentiate so that people employed otherwise than under a contract of service shall be entitled to grant, and those employed with a contract of service (which is permitted) shall not be entitled to grant, though they may be working side by side with the others and earning just as little—earning, in fact, an amount which is entirely inadequate for their special needs. I should like to be satisfied, before the Bill leaves this Committee, that the words "otherwise than under a contract of service" do not inflict, even in a small number of cases, an undue hardship and cause an unnecessary distinction among a very deserving class of people. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. As he has mentioned, the object of this clause is to enable assistance to be given to self-employed people who are labouring under this sort of disability.
I will explain that, I hope to the satisfaction of the noble Lord. When this matter was discussed in another place, emphasis was laid on the employment of the blind disabled person, particularly in workshops provided by the local authorities. It was suggested that the clause as it stood was too limited in that connection. The provisions of the Blind Persons Acts are being repealed by this Bill, and the provisions of this Bill are being put in their place. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this Bill imposes an obligation upon a local authority to establish workshops for people labouring under this particular type of disability; and whether they employ them under contract of service or otherwise is immaterial, from the point of view of subsidy. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 28 (6) he will see that an exception is made there to the general principle that there should not be 172 subsidies, the exception being in this very case—the case under subsection 4 (c) where the local authority provide workshops for people suffering from this type of disability. So the case which the noble Lord has in mind is amply covered by the words of the clause as it stands.
The noble Lord went on to make a point which, so far as my recollection goes, was not taken during the discussions in another place. That was as to cases in which people labouring under this sort of disability are employed not in local authority workshops but by independent employers. The Government have given careful consideration to this type of case, and they feel that they could not accept an Amendment such as this which would, in effect, subsidise the employment of blind and other disabled people. The Committee will recollect that an Act was passed during the war years, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, which puts upon employers who are employing a certain number of workpeople an obligation to take into their employment a certain proportion of men who are disabled on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity and are, therefore, substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment. The obligation under that Statute is that those people should be employed at a reasonable wage. If the suggestion which the noble Lord is putting forward were accepted, it would mean, in effect, that there would be a subsidy to employers of this kind in respect of that type of worker. We should, in fact, be getting rather close to the old Speenhamland Act, which members of the Committee know so much about and which I think was discussed from time to time during our debates on the Agriculture Act.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but surely two important points arise. First, may I say that in this House we try to raise points which are not duplicates of points which have already been raised in another place. We endeavour to put certain fresh considerations forward in dealing with a measure of this kind. With regard to the employment of disabled people, I was thinking more of disability to fingers and hands and other handicaps of that sort. Under this provision for employing a disabled person, an employer might employ him at the piece-rate for the job, but the 173 man may be able to work only a short time, and therefore his total earnings in a full week will not be sufficient for his needs. A disabled person's needs will often be greater because he may have to provide more help in his home, and other things, than an ordinary able-bodied person. The point I am trying to make is that if his earnings on a perfectly normal wage are insufficient, it seems to me to be not unfair that he should be able to get a certain amount of extra assistance to make up his total earnings to allow for his increased needs.
My other point is a question, because this Bill is not easy to understand. Will the provision of Clause 28, subsection (6) (a), override the provisions of the clause I am trying to amend, even where a person is employed by a local authority under contract of service? I hope those two points will be looked into again. I do not wish to press my Amendment at this stage and beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Clauses 11 to 17 agreed to.
§ " Accommodation in reception centres in special cases.
§ 18.—(1) This section applies to reception centres (hereinafter referred to as ' designated reception centres ') designated by the Minister of National Insurance for the purposes of this section on the application of the Board.
§ (2) Where a person seeks lodging in a designated reception centre and it appears to the Board, or if the centre is being provided by a local authority to the local authority, that the said person persistently resorts to reception centres when capable of maintaining himself, the Board or local authority may direct that he shall only be received into the centre subject to the conditions specified in subsection (4) of this section.
(b) on any such reference the Tribunal may either quash the direction or order that during such period as may be specified in the order he shall only be admitted to a designated reception centre subject to the conditions specified in the next following subsection.
(b) that while the person in question is at the centre he shall do such work within the curtilage thereof as the Board or local authority may require.
§ (5) A person received into a centre subject to the said conditions shall, if he fails to comply therewith, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month."
§ The noble Lord said: It may be more convenient for the House if, in my remarks on the new clause standing in my name, I also refer to the Amendments to the present Clause 18, because although these Amendments are not consequential on the new clause, they all hang together.
§ Under Clause 16, re-establishment centres are to be set up and persons who can benefit by a course of rehabilitation can be admitted, and can be maintained whilst they are there. Clause 17 provides for the establishment of reception centres, and it will be the duty of the Board to make provision whereby persons without a settled way of living may be influenced to lead a more settled life. Moreover, the Board will provide and maintain centres for the provision of temporary board and lodging for such persons. In neither of these clauses are conditions laid down. In neither are charges made for services actually rendered. In the new clause, however, there are provisions that would alter that, in so far as the reception centres are concerned, for where a person seeks lodging in a designated reception centre, and it appears to the Board or to the local authority that the said person persistently resorts to reception centres when capable of maintaining himself, the Board or local authority may direct that he shall only 175 be received into the centre under conditions. The conditions are as follows: That the person in question shall remain at the centre for at least such period from the time he entered it, not exceeding forty-eight hours, as the Board or the local authority providing the centre may require, and that while the person in question is at the centre he shall do such work within the curtilage thereof as the Board or local authority may require. And subsection (5) of the new clause says: A person received into a centre subject to the said conditions shall, if he fails to comply therewith, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.
§ There have been discussions recently between the Assistance Board, the London County Council, the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations, on the regulations that are to be made by the Assistance Board for both of these centres. I would like to quote from a statement made by those concerned as to the reasons why they want some kind of disciplinary powers in the two types of centre. I hope your Lordships will not find what I quote too startling. They say: It has been found that the absence of restrictions, whilst encouraging the men genuinely willing to be helped, is being increasingly used by those who have no wish to be helped and intend only to take advantage of free board and lodging at the reception centres. These men take their discharge in the morning, but return in the evening and continue to do so night after night. They take no interest in the work of rehabilitation which is being attempted. They are quite capable of earning a living, though they have no taste for steady work, and are in fact suspected of doing odd jobs during the day. They either spend their earnings on drink, or hide their money under a brick in a bombed building and declare that they are destitute or have only a few coppers. Among them are a number of known petty criminals. They can get a free bed and two free meals and they cannot be turned away because they cannot (or will not) pay, and the doors cannot be closed against them because they are late. They can come in any condition, and some get drunk on their day's earnings knowing that they cannot be turned away, as they would from a common lodging house. If, as many do, they turn up besotten, foul their beds and commit other nuisances, they cannot be refused admission the next time they present themselves.
§ The authorities of whom I have spoken are suggesting nothing very drastic. First of all, they want to take out of Clause 18 the limitation on disciplinary powers 176 made therein—namely, those which concern merely the preservation of law and order. Lower down, they want two changes. Instead of giving power to a court of summary jurisdiction to impose a fine and imprisonment as well, they want to make them alternative penalties, so that those brought up will either be fined or imprisoned. What I have read to your Lordships may seem rather strong, and it may seem somewhat libellous on many men who may well be deserving. But it should be said, after those strong remarks have been made, that the local authorities are of opinion that the rehabilitation centres which have been in operation have been successful in a great number of the cases of deserving men who enter for the purpose of being reconditioned for industry. They want these two classes of centre to be put on a proper basis, to protect the straight men from those who are not quite so straight. They therefore suggest that the Bill should be amended in the way proposed. I beg to move.
Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to add a few words in support of this Amendment, mainly for the reasons which I ventured to state on Second Reading as to the inadvisability of encouraging idleness in freely provided accommodation. I was then speaking mainly of old persons, and of the provision of accommodation at the public expense, with no inducement or compulsion for the accommodated persons to perform work. When I spoke on this subject on the Second Reading, I ventured to refer to my experience in New Zealand, when I was Governor-General there, as to the difference between old persons' homes where work was required—and I also added religious observance—and those where no work was required. Where no work was required there seemed to be in every case a feeling of discontent, unhappiness and perpetual grumbling against the local authority. I do not know whether this is the right way to effect what I desire, but I bear in mind what. I think was a dictum of the Apostle Paul: if any would not work, neither should he eat. 177 For the sake of the happiness of the men themselves, I suggest that as a condition of the provision of accommodation they should at least be encouraged, if not compelled, to do some work. The only possible qualification I would suggest to this Amendment is that after the words: such work within the curtilage thereof as the Board or local authority may require, there should be added the words, taking into account his capacity to perform the same. This would ensure that he would not be expected to do work for which he is wholly unfit.
May I say a word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me that there must be some kind of final sanction or compulsion for these difficult people, who are really the thugs of the world. I think there must be some kind of rules for them, some kind of disciplinary action; if not, one man can wreck a large centre. I am pleased to see that something of this sort is proposed, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
I am glad to say on behalf of the Government that we accept this Amendment. With regard to the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that some additional words should be inserted, I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept those. I will, however, certainly have them looked at and, in the event of their passing crutiny, we shall be pleased to incorporate them. There is not much one need say in respect of this matter, which has been so lucidly and forcibly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. In the old system—with the casualty ward, in which compulsory work was imposed, and in which the forty-eight hour stay was imposed—there was often a good deal of hardship, sometimes not merited. But that system came to an end at the beginning of the war. As has been suggested by noble Lords, there are a small minority of men who are clever at taking advantage of every provision of this kind, and who do not intend to make any return to the community for the advantages which the community provide for them. Of course, men of that kind have to be dealt with. It is to be hoped that these proposals which have been put forward on behalf 178 of local authorities who have had experience during recent months in dealing with men of this kind will prove adequate to deal with this problem. If not, it may be necessary to take rather more stringent measures.
We were hoping on this side of the House that the Government would accept this new clause. We are glad to hear that they have done so. One person without a settled way of life is our old friend the tramp. He may be a romantic Autolycus, in which case his desire to live at the taxpayers' expense is not very strong; if he can keep clear of this kind of place, he does. But there is another kind of tramp who, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says, is not romantic at all, but is merely a disgusting wastrel who is a complete loss to society. On this side of the House we fully appreciate the case which can be made on that subject by the local authorities, a case which was quoted to such good effect by the noble Lord. We are glad that the clause is being added, and I hope that the additional words which were proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will be considered, because I think it is important to give some safeguard that men are not put to work which they are obviously incapable of doing. That might not happen, but we all have experience of cases in which it does happen, and I think it is as well that some words of that kind should be put in.
I beg to move the next Amendment.
I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment also. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved to add to the clause: (9) In subsections (4) and (6) of this section the expression ' another local authority ' shall include the council of a county district.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to amend the definition of "another local authority" on page 11, line 3, and consequently in subsection (6). By the definition contained in Clause 31 the expression "local authority" means only the county or county boroughs, and does not include non-county boroughs, urban district and rural district councils. The Amendment, therefore, would allow the county councils to agree with these county district councils within their respective areas for the premises to be provided by those district councils to be used in fulfilment of the duties imposed upon the county councils under Clause 20. This is particularly the case in their capacity as housing authorities—and the county councils themselves are not housing authorities. Housing authorities are being pressed to provide special bungalows and flats for the use and benefit of elderly persons who cannot manage a large house and who want something convenient to look after. They are also able to provide a certain amount of service in the way of home helps and sometimes they send round meals. There are Civic Restaurants for those who cannot cook for themselves or do much marketing, and there are other services provided for those in case of need.
§ It is not proposed to impose any new obligation upon any class of local authority, but merely to allow the county councils and the county borough councils to make arrangements with the housing authorities for them to provide accommodation for a certain number of these elderly persons, who would thus be able to live in their normal surroundings, in their own neighbourhood, among their own friends and their own relations. It would not be necessary for them in those circumstances to be accommodated in the hostels, which accommodation is very urgently needed for many other persons. This is entirely a permissive matter and not a matter of obligation.
§ It was pointed out by the Local Government Boundary Commission in their second Report that the present structure of local government is not altogether appropriate for the functions which have to be carried out, although a great many of these non-county boroughs and urban districts are in fact much larger, and have more resources, than some of the county councils and even some of the county borough councils within their area. This opens the way—which I think is most desirable—for getting the local authority on the spot to carry out some of these services for the welfare of the elderly people who live in their neighbourhood, and it enables the county councils to see that the county districts are of a proper size and work efficiently. This Amendment has the warm support of the Rural District Councils Association. It is not obligatory, but creates provisions which may be very useful, even if only in a small number of cases. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment and say that it is not really necessary. What is necessary is to preserve a distinction between the responsibility of the two types of local authority—that is to say, the county district councils on the one hand and the county councils on the other. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the county districts are the housing authorities, and it is their function to make suitable provision for old people who are able to live more or less normal lives in their own homes. 181 The vast majority of old people are in this category, and it should be the policy of the housing authority to enable them, so far as possible, to continue to live independent lives. The function of county councils under the Bill is to provide for the small minority who need care and attention in special accommodation. It is recognised that county districts will be in a position to assist county councils by furnishing information as to the need for residential accommodation for old people and others needing care and attention. Provision has been made in the Bill requiring county councils to send to the councils of county districts a copy of their scheme, in order that the latter may have an opportunity of making representations with respect to it. That is in Clause 33(3).
As regards the administration of residential accommodation, this must be the responsibility of the county councils. I would point out to noble Lords that under paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule, the responsible committee of the county council may appoint sub-committees for the purpose of managing such accommodation, and it is not necessary that those sub-committees should contain more than one member who is a member of the county council parent committee. The parent committee, as the noble Lord remembers, will itself contain co-opted members. Thus, the sub-committee could be wholly composed of members of county district councils. I suggest that there is provision for a great deal of assistance and activity on the part of the county district councils, and I hope that my explanation will have given the noble Lord a good deal of satisfaction and will enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
We are a little disappointed on this side of the House with the reply which has just been given, since we have great sympathy with district councils, and rural district councils in particular, who wish to play a rather larger part in this work than they are allowed under the Bill. I should have thought, as a matter of fact, that as the Amendment is only a technical matter it would come better under Clause 32 than where the noble Lord proposes to insert it. But that is another matter. I hope the Government will consider between now and the Report stage whether it is 182 not desirable to put something of this kind into Clause 32. It is true that the schemes of the county council are to be referred to the local councils for consideration, and I have no doubt that any representations the subordinate authorities make will be duly considered. But that is not quite the same thing as giving them an established place in the machinery to be set up. I think there is a stronger case to be made for them than that which the noble Lord made when he countered the proposal. We hope very much that he will give it further consideration.
May I also hope that it will have further consideration? The point I would like to put is that we are dealing with a class. Clause 20 (1) (a) refers to people who need a certain amount of care and attention but for whom it is not really necessary to supply complete residential accommodation in a hostel. There are certain people who should get some extra care and attention—which I do not think the housing authority could finance at present, except under delegation from the authority who has the power—and who should be able to live in specially adapted houses with rather more services than they could probably pay for, and probably more general services than are provided for normally healthy inhabitants. The sort of thing I have in mind is that in certain cases of illness the local authority provides help and billeting services temporarily. That might, on some payment from the county councils, be extended to a regular provision for a certain number of old people, who could then be retained longer in these housing settlements and centres, rather than that they should be taken away permanently to a hostel I I hope the noble Lord will appreciate what we have in mind. I think there is a possibility here for meeting a need, and if we do so it will be to the great benefit of those concerned and it will also make room for those who must go into a hostel and for whom these other services are not adequate. I will not press the Amendment now, but I hope further consideration will be given to it before the next stage.
I would like to remind the noble Lord that under the National Health Service Act the county council, as the local authority, can provide helps and home nursing, which is the point 183 he has just mentioned. He may have overlooked that matter.
It is a little difficult to see how these new things are going to work. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Clause 20 agreed to.
§ Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
§ Power of Board to require provision of accommodation in urgent cases.
§ 24.—(1) Where the Board are satisfied that a person in the area of a local authority is in urgent need of accommodation under this Part of this Act, the Board may require the local authority to provide such accommodation for him.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may require the local" and to insert: after consultation with the local authority may require that ".
§ The noble Lord said: This, again, is a matter which concerns consultation. The provisions of this Bill impose heavy obligations on local authorities, and the requirement to provide accommodation is one that may not be possible to undertake at an early date to the extent envisaged by the Bill, though we have great hopes that as time goes on it may be possible to acquire and provide adequate accommodation. This particular clause seems to have imposed an obligation on the local authority to provide accommodation whenever the Assistance Board require it, however impracticable it may be; and I urge that it will always be desirable to have some consultation with the officers of the local authority before the requirement is actually sent. As a rule, these things are talked over on the official level. It would not cause any more delay to have such consultations; and a certain number of difficulties might be cleared up. Many cases might be prevented from going to appeal—as provided for in subsection (3) of Clause 24—where the local authorities are aggrieved by the requirements of the Board. If there had been previous consultation it would avoid many of these appeals as well as perhaps make more possible the provision of accommodation which is required, or enable the local authority to satisfy the Assistance 184 Board that accommodation really is not available and cannot be provided. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment. If the noble Lord will again read Clause 24, subsection (1) he will find that it deals with cases of urgent need of accommodation, and it empowers the Board's officer to require the local authority to provide accommodation for a person only if the Board's officer is satisfied that the person is in urgent need of it. The noble Lord will agree that there are varying degrees of urgency in cases in which the Board's officer may have occasion to make use of this power. I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance that wherever time permits the officer will consult with the authority before requiring that the person be admitted. But there are obviously circumstances in which the need is so urgent as to rule out the possibility of prior consultation. That is really the position with which the clause deals, and I hope that in these circumstances the noble Lord will not proceed with his Amendment.
On the assurance that the noble Lord has given, I shall not press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Clause 24 agreed to.
§ Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
§ Exchequer contributions to local authorities.
(c) that the premises were acquired on or after that day.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) to substitute for "thirty-first day of October "the words" seventh day of March."
§ The noble Lord said: This is another point that was raised on the Second Reading. I hope that on further consideration I may receive a little more sympathy from the noble Lord opposite, for I believe this to be a question of principle of some importance. After all, it is not only in the present Bill that dates are fixed somewhat arbitrarily. There have been circumstances in other cases in which local authorities are directed or urged to undertake certain expenditure; and then, when those who have been eager, progressive and public-spirited proceed to do so, they have found that they suffer because they are unable to get the grants that are available for those who have been a little more dilatory and have not started their work until a later date. That certainly penalises the progressive authorities and favours those who have been dilatory.
§ This particular date has been based on the issue on March 7, 1947, of Circular 49, which urged county councils and the councils of county boroughs to acquire and adapt premises available for that purpose, and stated that the Minister was prepared to consider schemes for the purpose. On general principles of administration, it seems most undesirable as well as grossly unfair that those councils who acted in response to the Minister's urging should be penalised because of their action at that time and, because of their zeal and efficiency, should be unable to obtain the grants. I greatly hope that the amendment of the date will be accepted in this case. I suggest that where directions are given of such a nature that local authorities are encouraged to undertake work, it should be accepted as a general principle that those local authorities should become eligible for any grant or allowances that are available at a later date, whether by some administrative provision or by an Act of Parliament. I think that that is essential for good and progressive administration. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I must again disappoint the noble Lord. I have a certain degree of sympathy with the Amendment, but it will be recognised that there are factors which must be taken into account. For instance, as originally 186 introduced in another place the Bill provided subsidies only in respect of new premises built for the purposes of accommodation under the Bill. But the strength of the case for extending the subsidy to existing premises which are acquired and adapted for the purpose of such accommodation has been recognised and provided for in Clause 27 (2) (c) of the Bill. The clause as thus extended will result in a substantial and early increase in Exchequer expenditure. There are two dates, as the noble Lord mentioned, either of which might be regarded as a natural date for the purpose—the date of the introduction of the Bill in another pace and the date on which it will come into operation. In drawing the Bill so as to give subsidies from the former date, rather than from the latter, the Government consider that local authorities are being treated generously. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, hat some local authorities acquired houses for old peoples' homes in immediate response to the Minister's circular of March 7, 1947. On the other hand, some progressive authorities acquired premises for that purpose before that date.
Wherever the line is drawn, obviously some author ties may allege that they have been unfairly treated. In the circumstances, I think the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment and leave the clause as it stands.
I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy, but I should like a little more than that. I think there is some reason for the dates selected I am interested to hear that certain cases will be ruled out even by the insertion of the earlier date. But surely local authorities will not be encouraged to take action on circulars issued by the Minister if they think that by so doing they will be penalised, whereas if they wait until the Bill becomes law they can then safeguard the interests of their ratepayers and taxpayers. I think it is an unwise provision, and it would be much more generous and reasonable for an earlier date to be chosen. I am afraid that it does not seem as if I am going to succeed in this case. Therefore I do not see much use in pressing this Amendment.
§ Clause 27 agreed to.
§ Clauses 28 to 35 agreed to.
§ Registration of disabled persons' or old persons' homes.
§ There are other grounds on which registration may similarly be refused. In subsection (4) it is provided that the registration may be cancelled by the local authority for the same reasons as a new registration may be refused, and for certain other reasons. It is perfectly proper to cancel a registration or to refuse a registration on the ground that the manager of such a home is an unfit person to be charged with such great responsibilities. However, as the clause is at present drafted, we are making the registration authority responsible for the fitness, 188 not merely of the manager, not merely of his principal employees, such as the head nurse or any one of that type, but for everybody employed in the home—even the gardener, for example. It seems to be going rather too far to make the registration authority responsible to that degree. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment asking that the grounds on which registration may be cancelled or refused should be the unfitness of only those persons who are employed in posts of responsibility. I am not certain that that is the most satisfactory phrase, but I am well accustomed by now to being told that much better language can be devised. I hope that that is the reply that the noble Lord will give me. I beg to move.
The noble Earl is in a very sensitive condition this afternoon. He has anticipated my mind. We are quite prepared to accept the object that the noble Earl has in mind but, as he has anticipated, we are not quite sure that the language of the Amendment is the language that should be used. If the noble Earl will accept my assurance that we will look at the matter between now and Report stage, when we can put down an agreed Amendment, perhaps he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
I should like to say how glad we are that that can be done. This clause is rather too tightly drawn. Provided that it is modified in some way, no doubt we shall be glad to accept it.
I am glad to accept the assurances of the noble Lord opposite. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
§ LORD HENDERSON moved to add to subsection (2): (e) paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of the said Section four (under which regulations may require appeals and advertisements to 189 state that a charity is registered under the said Act of 1940) shall have effect as if for the words ' under this Act ' there were substituted the words ' in accordance with the National Assistance Act, 1948 '.
§ The noble Lord said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. For the purpose of registering voluntary organisations which a local authority employ as their agents for the purposes of their welfare services for handicapped persons under Clause 28 of the Bill, Clause 29 invokes the registration machinery which already exists under the War Charities Act, 1940, in relation to war charities. Such voluntary organisations are, however, not necessarily or primarily war charities. Therefore it would be inappropriate and, indeed misleading to require them to state in their literature and on their notepaper that they are "registered under the War Charities Act," which would be the effect of applying to them the Act of 1940. The Amendment gives effect to what has always been the intention—namely, that these organisations should describe themselves as "registered in accordance with the National Assistance Act, 1948." I beg to move.
§ Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
§ Liability to maintain wife or husband, and children.
(b) a woman shall be liable to maintain her husband and her children.
§ (2) The references in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last foregoing subsection to a person's children include references to illegitimate children of that person.
§ LORD CHORLEY moved to delete all subsection (2) except the word "The," where that word first occurs, and to insert: reference in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection to a man's children includes a reference to children of whom he has been adjudged to be the putative father, and the reference in paragraph (b) of that subsection to a woman's children includes a reference to her illegitimate children.
§ The noble Lord said: This clause, as drafted, puts on the father of an illegitimate child a liability to maintain that child. Clause 42 gives to the Board or 190 to a local authority a general right of recovery against all persons liable to maintain other persons. As it stands, that would enable the Board to enforce the obligation of the father to maintain his illegitimate child against him. On the other hand, in Clause 43, there is an elaborate set of provisions enabling the ordinary bastardy proceedings to be put into operation by the Board, or the Board to intervene in the bastardy proceedings which are already being brought by the mother. It appears on consideration that it is undesirable that this general right in Clause 42 should be used in a bastardy case, and the object of the Amendment which I am putting before your Lordships is to ensure that in this type of case the provisions of Clause 43, the ordinary bastardy proceedings in the magistrates' court, shall in fact be used. The Amendment which I am moving will ensure that. I beg to move.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved to insert after subsection (1): The reference in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection to a man's children includes a reference to his stepchildren.
§ The noble Earl said: We now come to a rather difficult and complicated question. Throughout the whole of human history there has been special commiseration and sympathy with the position of a widow with dependent children, and, in recent times particularly, there has also been a great deal of proper sympathy for the position of the unmarried mother. When a widow remarries, or an unmarried mother contracts a respectable alliance not with the father of the child, she naturally expects and it naturally happens that the stepfather assumes responsibility for the upbringing of the child. That is a proper and commendable attitude upon his part. Indeed, it frequently happens that a widow seeks re-marriage with the object of providing her fatherless children with a new father. Surely, if that is the case, we shall be taking a correct, a natural and a suitable course if we insert a reference to stepchildren in this clause, and make a man responsible for the stepchildren for the purposes of this Act. I recognise that there may be cases where 191 that would be a hardship and may well be resented by the man but, as a general principle and in order not to weaken natural human ties, I suggest that those words should be there inserted. I beg to move.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will be prepared to give real consideration to this Amendment. Nearly all modern courts and legislation deal with this kind of problem, principally in the interests of the child, and there is no question in that regard. In the case of illegitimate children, however, it is of great importance, that there should be no undue differentiation between their position in the home vis-à-vis that of children with a different status. They happen, through no fault of their own not to have been born in marriage, and are given a different status. That is the very thing that one wants to avoid; we want to prevent such children suffering for sins for which they have no responsibility at all. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will receive consideration.
But that is a differentiation between the children all the same.
It is not a differentiation which, with great respect, is obvious to the child. This question is a difficult one—namely, how far one can go in placing a responsibility upon a man in this respect. I think one should remember that the obligation which is being placed upon the man in the clause as it now stands is an obligation for the purposes of this particular Bill, and does not go beyond that. It is perfectly true that under the old law of this country a wide obligation has been placed upon a man in respect of any stepchildren that there may be as a result of his marriage, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. On 192 the other hand, I think in Scotland the law has always taken the opposite view about the obligation; and, after a great deal of consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that the Scottish view of the matter is the more equitable. This case, if it were accepted, would not only apply in regard to stepchildren of a previous marriage but would also place a responsibility upon the husband in regard to the illegitimate children of a previous marriage. The noble Earl was quite prepared to have a liability as extensive as that placed upon the father. We do not think that is really a fair obligation and, on that consideration, we are not able to see our way clear to accept the Amendment.
I am astounded. This Government agree to the father being responsible, but a man who takes on a voluntary marriage with a widow is not to have the same responsibility. What is the object of a woman who is in need of help and who accepts an offer from a man whom she aspires to love? Surely those children should not be put at a disadvantage. I cannot understand why one should be accepted and the other not. The noble Lord has not explained why and, until he does, I think we are entitled to ask for a promise that this Amendment will receive careful consideration before Report stage. I think we must have some undertaking, because otherwise it is absolutely unfair as between the two parties.
I entirely concur with what the noble Marquess has just said. We are by no means satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord opposite. It does not seem to us to meet the case at all. We do not at this point wish to insist upon this Amendment; there may be a better way of dealing with it. But before we leave the Amendment we must ask for an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered before Report stage, and we reserve the right to deal with it on Report stage if the reply is still unsatisfactory in our view.
The noble Lord can be assured that every consideration will be given to a point which he and his noble friends put forward in this way, and I am very glad indeed to give him 193 that assurance. Subject to that, however, I should like to point out that there is a considerable difference, in regard to a man's responsibility for a child, between the position of a man who actually begets a child and that of a man who marries a woman who has had children by a previous husband or by a paramour. This is really concerned with the case of recovery. With respect, the noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that there is a substantial difference between proceedings for the recovery of money from a man by the Assistance Board and putting him under the kind of obligation which the noble Lord has in mind.
NOW let us see to where we have got to. We have had an admission from the noble Lord opposite that the whole tone and tendency of the Common Law of England, in these matters, is being reversed, more particularly for the limited purposes of this Bill. In a subsection to a clause in a large general Bill we find that the views taken by the Common Law of this part of Great Britain are set at nought. We are told that the Minister, or whoever is responsible for this Bill, has carefully considered the matter and has taken the decision that the Scottish law (and I speak of the Scottish law with great respect) is preferable on this point. I am sorry that the matter should be thus dealt with. To my way of thinking, the speech of the noble Lord opposite has markedly strengthened the case that I, with my noble friends, have made out for this Amendment. I beg that there will be reconsideration in this connection. I beg that the guardian of the Common Law of this country, the Lord Chancellor himself, may be brought into the consultations and that the fullest consideration shall be given to a matter which raises a very great issue of principle. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
May I add one word before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment? I think that perhaps I must have misled the noble Earl. He seems to think I said that the Common Law of England was being altered. That is not so at all. The wife still has the right to proceed against the husband at law. This is purely a question of the right of the Board to recover.
I entirely appreciate that. I think that if the noble Lord reads the report of my speech he will see that I was not misled by what he said.
I want to be quite clear as to the position. May we take it that the noble Lord is prepared to give real consideration to the point which has been raised? In his second speech he seemed rather to take away with one hand what he had given with the other, and to say that the point was hardly worth reconsideration. I should like to know what his attitude really is.
I said "subject to the undertaking I have given" and added that I would like to make my position clear. I hope the noble Lord will not think that because I agree to consider something I am debarred from adding some words of explanation.
§ LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause: (3) In the application of subsection (2) of this section to Scotland for the reference to children of whom a man has been adjudged to be the putative father there shall be substituted a reference to children his paternity of whom has been admitted or otherwise established.
§ The noble Lord said: Before the Committee discussed Lord Iddesleigh's Amendment your Lordships had accepted an Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Chorley. This necessitated the Amendment that I am now moving. Lord Chorley's Amendment limits a man's liability for the maintenance of his illegitimate children to those children of whom he has been adjudged the putative father, the object being to bring the clause into accord with English law. In Scotland a man is liable for the maintenance of his illegitimate child. Section 80 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, authorises the prosecution of a putative father who fails to maintain his illegitimate child, if the paternity has been admitted or otherwise established. It is felt that the principle established in Scottish law should be safeguarded as indicated in the Amendment. I beg to move.
Do I understand that by this Amendment Scotland is given some protection for the view taken by her own law, and that England is not getting similar protection?
§ Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
§ Recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance.
§ (6) The payments to be made to the Board or a local authority under this section shall (irrespective of the recipient thereof) be applied as follows, that is to say— (a) payments in respect of any period during which the person assisted was in receipt of assistance both under Part II of this Act and also under Part III thereof shall inure for the benefit of the Board up to an amount equal to the cost of the assistance under Part II of this Act, and the balance, if any, shall inure for the benefit of the local authority giving the assistance under Part III of this Act, and such adjustments shall be made between the Board and local authorities as may be requisite for giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (6), to omit all words after "benefit," where that word first occurs, and to insert: of the Board and of the local authority giving the assistance under Part III of this Act in such proportions, respectively, as the cost of the assistance provided by the Board under Part II of this Act bears to the cost of the assistance provided by the local authority under Part III of this Act, in so far as such cost is not met by any payments made or refunded to the local authority in respect of the person assisted under Sections twenty-one or twenty-five of this Act.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next, though rather lengthy, are really quite simple. Clause 42 provides that where the National Assistance Board and the local authorities have incurred expenditure in giving assistance to any persons they may recoup themselves by seeking contributions from anyone who is legally liable to maintain the person assisted; and they do this by means of a complaint made to the court. The court orders repayment of such sums as it thinks fit. Subsection (6) specifies what is to happen to the payment when it is made to the Board or to a local authority. If it is in respect of a period during which the person concerned was assisted 196 both by the Board, under Part II of the Bill, and by the county council—that is the local authority—or the county borough council, under Part III, the Board's claim is to be met in full, and the balance, if any, is to go to the local authority. Often there will not be any balance at all for the local authority. It seems to me that a most unfair distinction is made between the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and that a very raw deal may be given to the ratepayer who may have had to provide considerable sums of money.
§ The explanation given in another place by those responsible seemed to overlook two factors: first of all, that the cost of maintenance incurred by the local authority is likely to be much more than 21s.; and the difference between the amount of 21s. (which is what the Board contribute) and the actual cost is to be borne by the local authority. The clause seems to fetter in a most unusual fashion the court's discretion in deciding the body to whom payments are to be made. No doubt, in determining what the payments should be, the court will take into consideration the amount of the expenditure incurred by the local authority. The Amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that the sum ordered by the court to be paid shall be apportioned between the Board and the local authority in proportion to the cost—it is clear, I think, that it might be interpreted to read the "net cost"—of the assistance provided by each of them. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I have again to send the noble Lord empty away. I think that his Amendment is founded upon a misconception of the principle upon which this Part of the Bill is based. The Bill places the obligation squarely on the local authority in respect of this type of case. It is perfectly true 197 that it gives to the local authority a subvention from the central authority of the 21s. which the noble Lord mentioned. If that subvention is, in fact, paid, then the central authority are to have the first right, so to speak, to recover that amount out of what must be regarded as the personal resources of the person assisted. When the noble Lord says that the discretion of the court is fettered in respect of deciding to whom it will order the payment to be made, I reply, with respect, that the Bill does not really do that at all. In effect, the Bill says that the central authority are to have the first 21s. of the money. One should also, I think, say that the general principle involved is that the husband's payment is treated as part of the wife's income. That being so, the Board obviously have the first right to it. It would be the same, for example—and this perhaps is the most obvious instance one could give—if an inmate had an Old Age Pension of 26s. a week. The board save 26s. but the authority do not benefit at all. That case is exactly on all fours, and I think the noble Lord will see that in these circumstances it would be inexpedient to press this Amendment.
(b) accommodation is provided for an illegitimate child by, or by arrangement with, a local authority under Part III of this Act.
§ LORD HENDERSON moved to add to subsection (1): and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall not apply in relation to the father of the child.
§ The noble Lord said: An earlier Amendment made it clear that a father of an illegitimate child is not liable to maintain the child under Clause 41 unless and until he has been adjudged to be the putative father. The proceedings for having a person adjudged to be the putative father are taken under Clause 43, and the Bastardy 198 Acts, by reference to which that clause proceeds, provide for the amounts which a person adjudged to be the putative father of a child can be required to contribute towards the child's maintenance. It is essential that putative fathers dealt with under the Bill should not be treated differently from putative fathers so adjudged directly under the Bastardy Acts. This Amendment excludes the possibility of using Clause 42 for the recovery of contributions from a putative father, who will be dealt with entirely under Clause 43. I beg to move.
This Amendment is purely drafting. If an affiliation order is enforced, the new subsection (6) proposed, with the new subsection (5), to be substituted for the existing subsection (5) of this clause, will apply.
This Amendment is largely drafting. The new subsections (5) and (6) have the same effect as the existing subsection (5), which is considered to be unduly compressed. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved— Page 31, line 18, leave out subsection 5) and insert— (" (5) On an application by the Board or local authority in any proceedings under the said Section three brought: by the mother of the child an order under the said Section four may be made so as to provide as aforesaid.
§ LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to some extent of a drafting nature. The Amendment, taken with that on page 32, line 15, will have the effect of altering the position of the existing subsection (6), which will be reinserted as subsection (9) by the Amendment to page 32, line 17. The point being met by these Amendments is that the Secretary of State referred to in the subsection is the Home Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, who elsewhere in the Bill is the Secretary of State indicated. The Home Secretary's jurisdiction is exercisable only in England and Wales. This is made clear by the Amendment on page 32, line 17. I beg to move.
§ The noble Lord said: This point is very similar to the one I raised a moment or two ago. The Amendment your Lordships have just accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, at page 30, line 44, has added to the end of subsection (1) of Clause 43 the words "and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall not apply in relation to the father of a child." The Amendment I am now moving would omit those words in the application of the subsection to Scotland. Clause 43 gives the Assistance Board or local authority in Scotland power to raise action of affiliation and aliment where assistance is granted in respect of an illegitimate child. Clause 42 enables the Board or local authority to seek a maintenance order from a court against anyone liable to maintain a person who is being assisted. It appears that in England it would be appropriate to take civil proceedings against a putative father under Clause 43 only. There is no reason, however, why in Scotland it should not remain possible for proceedings to be taken against a putative father under either Clause 42 or Clause 43, whichever might appear appropriate in the particular case. For example, Clause 42 might be the more appropriate provision where the mother 200 for any reason was not available and the father had already admitted his paternity. I beg to move.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
This Amendment is consequential on the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.
§ " Expenses of council officers acting as Receivers.
§ 48. Where an officer of the council of a county or county borough with the permission of the council applies for appointment under section one of the Lunacy Act, 1908, to exercise the powers of management of property referred to in that section the council may defray any expenses incurred by him in connection with the application or the exercise of the said powers, in so far as those expenses are not recoverable by him from any other source."
§ The noble Lord said: Under the existing Poor Law, a Public Assistance authority have a right to recover the cost of any relief granted to a person out of any money or property in his possession or under his control. Where, therefore, a person of unsound mind becomes chargeable to the Public Assistance authority, it is the practice of the authority to ascertain whether the person has any estate, and where the estate is substantial (for example, over £100), it is customary for a senior officer of the authority to accept appointment by the Master in Lunacy as receiver.
§ Officers of local authorities are at present acting in this capacity in respect of large numbers of patients in mental hospitals. It is thought that local authorities generally would be prepared to continue this arrangement, in addition to the exercise of their duty under Clause 47 to protect the patient's moveable property. In future, however, treatment and maintenance in a mental hospital will be provided free of charge, and local authorities will have no interest in a patient's estate. Unless provision is made in the Bill, it will not be open to a local authority, where one of their officers accepts appointment as receiver, to meet any expenditure—for example, by allowing him to use the staff and offices of the local authority for the purposes of his appointment, even though the expenses are recoverable from the estate. The proposed new clause will allow the present arrangements to continue. I beg to move.
§ Clauses 48 to 58 agreed to.
This is the first of a series of Amendments of a drafting character. The others will be moved under the Fifth Schedule. This Amendment gives a wider set of words than those which at present appear. The Tribunal has various things to do—to report, to consent and so on—and the present words are not apt to cover consents and other proceedings. I beg to move.
We think this is a very desirable Amendment, and are glad to support it.
§ Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 60 agreed to.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) No regulations relating to or affecting the functions of local authorities shall be 202 made or confirmed by a Minister under this Act except after consultation with the Associations representing local authorities.
§ The noble Lord said: It was pointed out by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, that their functions under this Bill are largely only the extension of their existing powers and duties. They therefore consider that their representatives should be consulted at the drafting stage, before regulations are made by the Minister defining the exercise of those functions. They do not ask that their approval should be necessary; they urge only that their views should be taken into account before the regulations reach their draft form. It will be seen that under Clause 34 the Minister has wide powers of regulation, and that strengthens the necessity for consultation. I believe that certain matters in regard to the standard of accommodation will be covered by those regulations, and unless they are carefully worded and discussed considerable expense may be imposed upon the local authorities, as the grants are not a share of the expenses but merely an annual payment towards the upkeep. I understand that it is already the general practice and, if that is so, I would urge that whatever words are thought most convenient should be put in the Bill to cover this point. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I must again disappoint the noble Lord. He really supplied the answer to his own Amendment when admitting that it was general practice now for the Minister to consult local authorities. What the noble Lord wants is to make that consultation a statutory obligation on the Minister. I can assure him that the Minister will consult the associations on any regulations affecting the local authorities. I suggest, however, that it is not proper that the Minister should be bound by law to consult the local authorities on every regulation that may be required.
I do not propose to press the Amendment and, therefore, beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Clause 61 agreed to.
§ Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 66 shall stand part of the Bill?
There is one point on Clause 66. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain why it may be necessary to bring different Parts of the Bill into operation on different dates.
I can only make a shot at it. It is discretionary.
Why is the discretion taken?
Because obviously it might be that they were ready on one side before they were ready on the other, or vice versa. That is as it appears to me. I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord have the information if he is anxious about it.
We would like a more complete answer than that, if possible. If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, that answer was a little thin.
§ Clause 66 agreed to.
§ First and Second Schedules agreed to.
§ Administrative Provisions as to Local Authorities.
§ 4. The minutes of proceedings of the committee shall be open to the inspection of any local government elector for the area on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling, and any such local government elector may make a copy thereof or extracts therefrom.
§ Provided that before deciding on any proposal for a reference under this paragraph the local authority shall receive and consider a report on the proposal from the committee to which apart from the proposal the matter in question would have stood referred.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved to omit paragraph 4. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved largely on the question of privacy. It is quite clear from the 204 experience which one has of the minutes both of Public Assistance committees and of guardians' committees that they include a large number of items of a personal nature concerning the grant paid to recipients, as well as to guardian officers, which are entirely unsuitable for publication. Although it is difficult to know exactly what will be included in the minutes of any new committee, it is clear that they will be asked to consider and decide applications to reduce the charge for accommodation in a local authority home. If that were reported in the minutes any one in the home, or any one seeking admission into the home, would be able to ascertain it and press for similar treatment. It is suggested that the minutes should not be so detailed, and that possibly instead of a person's name being recorded a reference number should be given. If that is so, I think the minutes will be of little use, either to the members themselves or to the officers who want a record of what was actually decided.
§ I should like to refer to one wider point. Local authorities are now considering their form of administration under this particular Bill. There is a strong case for urging that most of the functions under Part III should be referred to the public health committee, and be exercised as part of their general service to the community under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. I would suggest (and this point has come to my notice only this morning) that as our object is to get rid of the old Poor Law, and all that it implied, it would be wiser to avoid having any special committee for Part III, since such a committee would inevitably be regarded as the heir and successor of the Public Assistance committee. If we do not have such a committee there will be less risk of carrying on the conditions of the Poor Law, which we are so anxious to avoid. If, however, a special committee is required, I would urge that its minutes should not contain quite unsuitable material for inspection by the public, and that the public will have quite adequate protection in the report which the committee will make to the council. Questions can then be raised about general administration. I beg to move.
I fully appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord has put forward this Amendment, but I think it is unnecessary. There is no reason why the minutes of proceedings should be detailed to the extent to which he has indicated, and I am prepared to give an assurance now that suitable guidance will be given to local authorities on this point; that is to say, references to cases in the minutes should not be by name at all, but by case paper numbers. If that were done it would obviate the fear which the noble Lord has in mind. On the second point raised by the noble Lord, as to the use of paragraph 7 instead of paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule, I can give him an assurance that, if any representation is made to the Minister that the local authority would prefer to operate under paragraph 7, he will consider it with great sympathy.
I am grateful for that last assurance. I note that the minutes may be sent to the authority but they will be of little use if they are quite so impersonal. However, in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, to omit the proviso to paragraph 8. The noble Lord said: This is my final Amendment. This proviso is one giving rather unnecessary and unwarranted powers of interference with the discretion of a senior local authority. I should have thought the matter would have been quite well left to their discretion, as one which they could be trusted to carry out wisely. Moreover, if this provision is insisted upon it will involve unnecessary delay. The council will have to wait for a report from its special committee, even before deciding to refer a matter to some other committee, and that again will take time. I think this proviso might well be omitted, and the local authority might be allowed to use their own discretion and work their own machinery in their own way. I beg to move.
I am sorry that I must decline to accept the last Amendment 206 the noble Lord is moving this afternoon, for reasons which I propose to give. The paragraph including the proviso follows the corresponding provisions relating to the local health committee in paragraph 2 of Part II of the Fourth Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1946. It has the purpose of enabling the local authority to secure that, where a matter arising out of their functions under Part III of the Bill also falls within the scope of another committee set up to deal with some general service of the authority, the matter shall be dealt with by the latter committee and not by the committee concerned with the functions under Part III of the Bill. Typical examples of such matters are recruitment and salaries of staff or the technical work of arranging for the construction of premises, which might respectively be the functions of a general establishment committee or a public works committee.
The noble Lord's Amendment would seem to be due to a misapprehension. It assumes that the proviso will necessitate special references and reports to the local authority whenever any particular matter, which may also relate to some general service, comes before the committee cealing with Part III functions, in order that the local authority, if they so desire, may refer it to the appropriate general service committee. This is not: so. What will happen is that when the administrative arrangements for the discharge of Part III functions are being made the local authority will propose that all maters relating to a function of a specified class, which relate also to a general service of the authority, shall be referred to some general service committee. In the last case, it is important that the Part III committee should be given an opportunity to consider and report because the matters not only relate to general service questions but also arise out of Part III functions, and may involve considerations of a more specialised character. For example, it may be considered convenient that applications for posts as home teachers of the blind should be referred to the establishments committee. Once the local authority, having obtained the views of the Part III committee, decide upon a particular reference to a general service committee, all cases falling within the scope of that decision will automatically go to that committee, and the Part III 207 committee will not be troubled with them at all. I hope that in the light of this explanation, which I think removes the fears which the noble Lord has in mind, he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
I feel bound to say something upon this point. Local authorities are composed of people with a certain amount of common sense, and if you cannot allow local authorities to make their domestic arrangements you will kill local authority service. Surely, if a local authority agree to remit a question to a particular committee, you should let them do it in their own way. So long as the law is administered properly and carried out to the satisfaction of the community, that is the main thing. If you cannot trust your local authority to do that, then do not give anything to local authorities at all. We have had sufficient experience in the past two years of Whitehall interfering with local authorities or preventing them from doing what they think is best for their people. If you wish to kill local authority, or if you wish to reduce their standard of authority, then insist on this pettifogging interference with their powers. I ask the noble Lord most seriously to consider that local authorities are composed of people with just as much intelligence as any of your Lordships. I most seriously ask the noble Lord to consider that local authorities should be left some discretion to carry out the duties entrusted to them, otherwise you will kill local government.
I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the two noble Lords on this side of the House. Many references in recent enactments reflect on the capacity and standing of the local authorities. If they are to be trusted at all—as they are trusted in many respects under this Bill—they should be treated as people who are worthy of trust. The proviso to which this Amendment refers appears rather to reflect upon their capacity. Surely it is not necessary. It seems rather superfluous, and perhaps the noble Lord will consider whether it cannot be left out with advantage.
I really must resist the further representations that have been made for the withdrawal of this 208 proviso. I think noble Lords have suggested that the Government are not treating local authorities with proper respect, but I venture to suggest that the whole content of the Bill is a complete rebuttal of that charge. The simple purpose we are dealing with is that, before matters which are of concern to a Part III committee are passed permanently to a general service committee, the Part III committee should be consulted. That is all that is involved, and I venture to submit that the arguments which have been advanced exaggerate the position and suggest a reflection upon the capacity of local authorities for which there is no justification at all in this Bill.
The Part III committees are committees appointed by the local authority, and the local authority may be considered competent to know how best to deal with committees they themselves appoint. But they are being given instructions how to deal with their own subordinates. That usually involves a reflection on the capacity of the people concerned. We feel rather strongly on this matter on this side of the House and we hope it will be reconsidered.
I think this means a little more than the noble Lord suggested. So far as I can gather, before a local authority can refer to any committee any matter on any occasion, they must, according to Part III, wait until they get a report from the committee specially appointed. I think the wording is a little more binding and goes a little further than the noble Lord indicated. Perhaps he would have a look at the wording again, as well as at the general question of the capacity and trustworthiness of the local authorities to deal with these matters. I do not propose to press the Amendment at this stage.
I think it is obvious that noble Lords feel strongly on this matter. There are many noble Lords, sitting on both sides of the House, who have had immense experience of local government and who feel deeply what seems to be a reflection on the ability of local authorities to deal with one of their own committees. It may be a difficult point for the noble Lord to deal with, but can he not give the House an assurance that he will look at the matter, discuss it with his colleagues, and let it come up again on the Report stage?
This matter was raised in another place. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that there is probably a far larger proportion of members in the other place who are active members of local authorities.
There are, of course, active members in both Houses. But the point was raised in another place and the explanation given by the Minister was accepted. No charge was made of this matter reflecting upon local authorities. Naturally, when I am appealed to to have the matter reconsidered I am very ready to do what I can, as always. I cannot give any undertaking but I will certainly take the matter back to the Minister for proper consideration—and I hope the noble Lord will not misunderstand what I mean by "proper consideration." Beyond saying that, I cannot give any indication of what the result will be—I do not know. But I will certainly have the matter reconsidered.
I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I must say, however, that I think he is mistaken if he imagines that the experience of local authorities is better reflected in another place than it is in your Lordships' House.
I was referring to the numbers. I should say that the proportion of active members is higher in another place than it is in your Lordships' House.
It depends on the way in which you interpret the word "active." I should say there is a far greater number of members of your Lordships' House concerned with local government than there are members similarly concerned in another place. I hope the noble Lord will not feel that we are questioning in any way his authority in this matter when we say we are not altogether satisfied to accept an assurance given in the other place. We are entitled to an assurance in this House. We are entitled to consider an assurance given in the other place as inadequate. I shall therefore take the noble Lord at his word and shall assume that he will really go into this matter again.
The noble Lord did not altogether correctly represent my speech. What I said was that members 210 in the other place were active in local authorities. When the question was raised in the other place and the explanation was received from the Minister, those members did not say that it reflected upon the capacity of local authorities. It was in that connection that I made my point.
In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Third Schedule agreed to.
This Amendment is designed to repeal a provision of Section 12 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1930, which requires that the administrative regulations for the purposes of the non-contributory old age pensions payable under the Act must include provision for registrars of births and deaths to notify the persons responsible for administering the pensions whenever they register the death of a person over seventy years of age. Under the arrangement in the present Bill, obviously there will have to be obligations of a general character in respect of the notifications of deaths, and this will make the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act completely unnecessary. The Amendment is designed, therefore, to repeal the provisions in the Old Age Pensions Act. I beg to move.
§ Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
This is a group of drafting Amendments which I have already foreshadowed in connection with an earlier clause. There are six of them which all make exactly the same point, and with your Lordships consent I will move them en bloc.
§ Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ 4.—(1) Where immediately before the appointed day any premises vested in a local authority were being used for the reception or relief of casual poor persons under the provisions of the Poor Law Act, 1930, the local authority shall maintain therein, until such time as the Board may determine, a centre for the like purposes as a reception centre maintained by the Board.
This is a minor drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ LORD HENDERSON moved in paragraph 4(1) after "1930" to insert "then if on the appointed day the premises remain so vested." The noble Lord said: This Amendment can best be explained in relation to the next Amendment, to page 60, line 5. Under subsection (2) of Clause 17 of the Bill the National Assistance Board will be able to require local authorities on their behalf to provide reception centres for casuals. The local authorities as public assistance authorities have already provided such centres to some extent, but where these do not already exist the Poor Law institution—that is, the workhouse—will need to continue to be used for the accommodation of casuals pending the provision of further reception centres. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule in its present form requires local authorities to maintain as reception centres on behalf of the Board any premises belonging to the local authorities in which casuals are being accommodated at the appointed day. The provision will thus apply to a workhouse in which casuals are then being received.
§ If any of these workhouses are being used mainly for hospital purposes they will be transferred to the Minister as hospitals by virtue of paragraph 8 of the Schedule. It is not desirable that local authorities should continue to maintain casuals in any part of such premises, although under paragraph 8 they will be entitled to use part of the premises for the purposes of Part III of the Bill—that is to say, for practical purposes as residential accommodation. The next Amendment, therefore—the one to page 60, line 5—provides that where any part of a hospital transferred to the Minister in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Schedule was immediately before the transfer being used inter alia for the reception of casuals that part of the hospital may continue to be so used; that is to say, it may be deemed to be a reception centre provided by the local authority on behalf of the Board under Clause 17 if the Minister so directs after consultation with the Board.
§ The same Amendment also contains the necessary provisions for keeping on foot the arrangements thus made, until the Minister, after consulting the Board, is satisfied that they are no longer necessary. The Amendment at present before the Committee makes it clear that it is only in premises being used at the appointed day for the reception of casuals and which remain vested in a local authority that the local authority will be required to maintain a reception centre. I beg to move.
I have no comment to make upon this Amendment except to say that it seems to be entirely reasonable. We are glad to accept it.
I have already explained this Amendment. I beg to move.
I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships to take this Amendment and the next together. Paragraphs (7) to (9) provide that a poorhouse in which provision is made for the sick shall go over to the regional hospital board or remain with the local authority, according to whether or not the poorhouse is mainly used for hospital purposes. Some of the poorhouses contain wards specially licensed for the accommodation of lunatics. A question has been raised whether, in determining if a poorhouse is mainly used for hospital purposes or not, these licensed wards are used for such purposes. The doubt arises because the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1862, authorises the licensing of these wards only for the accommodation of lunatics who do not require curative treatment, while the expression "hospital purposes" as defined in this Schedule implies the provision of treatment. The second Amendment is designed to remove this doubt. The first Amendment is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 40, leave out from (" in ") to (" shall ") in line 44, and insert (" the lunatic ward of a poorhouse within the meaning of the said Act, and the poorhouse as a whole was mainly being used for purposes other than hospital purposes.
§ Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
This is consequential upon the Amendment which I moved under the Fourth Schedule. I beg to move.
The effect of this next Amendment is to preserve Section 15 of the Family Allowances Act, 1945. Putting it shortly, this section provides that where payment has been made in respect of outdoor relief, and subsequent payments are made under the Act, the payments already made in respect of outdoor relief shall be taken into account. At first sight, it would appear that there is no need for this as soon as the present Bill comes into operation but, on further consideration, it appears that in respect of the transitional period it will still be necessary for the Minister or the central authority to have power to make payments to the local authority in respect of outdoor relief which has already been paid before the appointed date. Therefore, on the whole, it seems better, rather than to have a very complicated clause providing for that specific difficulty, to let the Act run on and run itself out, so to speak. I beg to move.
Paragraph 7 (3) of the Sixth Schedule provides that 215 Section 50 (4) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, shall not have effect, and this provision formally repeals it accordingly. I beg to move.
Before I move the last Amendment to this Bill may I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the courtesy they have shown and for the pleasant way in which the debate has been conducted. I would also like to thank those who have listened to what has been said. It has not been a very interesting discussion, but we are greatly indebted to them. This Amendment standing in my name merely repeats for Scotland what has been done for England by the preceding Amendment, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I beg to move.
" 10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 27. The National Health Service (Scotland), Act, 1947. In Section fifty, subsection (4)."
All I wish to do is to thank the noble Lord for what he has just said about the manner in which the Committee stage of this Bill has been conducted, and to say that we entirely reciprocate his feelings. We are grateful for the careful consideration which has been given to most of our submissions. Those that are held over to the Report stage will, I trust, be reconsidered in a manner that will prove satisfactory to us. May I also apologise for springing a question upon the noble Lord opposite of which I did not give him previous notice, but which I had only just seen for the first time myself?
§ Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

References: § 18

§ 24

§ 48

§ 4

§ 4
in casu