WOMEN'S TONGUES

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 58, 12 March 1929, Page 15

WOMEN'S TONGUES

A COMMONS DEBATE

WELFARE OF CHILDREN

(From "The Post's" Representative.)

LONDON, 24th January.

Women members of the House of Commons indulged in a little unparliamentary repartee yesterday when the Rating Relief Bill had arrived at that section which affects maternity and child welfare. With these subjects each felt she was competent to deal, and four of > them in quick succession entered into the debate.

Formerly the money for maternity and child welfare work has come in the shape of percentage grants from the Exchequer. The defect of the system was that the richer localities, being able to spend more, were naturally able to claim more from the State. .

Tho Minister of Health's Bill imposes a different system. The local authorities will receive -a block grant according to their populations, and out of the sum awarded will hand over to the maternity and Welfare services as much as may be needed. On the face of it this is the' most equitable way, yet the change was pessimistically described by the Socialists as a "felon's blow," and by the Liberals as "a death blow."

After an amendment had been moved, the ladies came into action. Lady Iveagh, in a short, well-conceived speech—the House has not yet heard a poor one from this member—explained that the less well-to-do districts would have a chance of developing their social services as never before, and this view set Misa Susan Lawrence itching to reply. But first a Liberal and then Dr. Davies, whose practical experiences make him keen to have the alteration, were ahead of her, and when Misa Lawrence was called Lady Iveagh had left the House.

Miss Lawrence's opening words were of regret that her opponent had gone. "I will fetch her back," interrupted Lady Astor, and tripped out. But when the pair of them returned Miss Lawrence hardly attempted to fulfil the implied threat ,of Lady Iveagh's annihilation. Not so Miss Ellen Wilkinson, Socialist member foi Middlesbrough, who with others imagined that the change had no other purpose than to save money .at th« expense of child welfare. With, a wave of her hand toward Lady Iveagh's' seat, she said: "It ill behoves a millionairess who has never known what it was to lack what she has need of, whose children have had every care, to be practically opposing an extension of maternity and child welfare centres." ' ■'..-'.: <■! "ORDER, GENTLEMEN." Lady Iveagh is not of a mind to enter into exchanges with the Socialists, and she said nothing. But her mercurial companion has never been known to sit still under any hostile remark, and forthwith Lady Astor began. "Millionairess '!" she exclaimed. , "It would be just as reasonable to say that, not being a mother, you have no right to talk about children." "Order, order, gentlemen," exclaimed the Socialists, with a marked emphasis on the "gentle." Miss Wilkinson: "One can expect that type of sneer, It might be just as well used as a comment against every man who happens to be sitting in the House." "We are fathers," shouted many outraged Conservatives, puffed with paternalpride which was as quickly deflated when Miss Wilkinson retorted, with a wealth of sarcasm, "You don't look ufter children." .

"May 1 remind the lion, lady," said Lady Astor, "that you don't have to be poor to have a heart? ..Women who huve got money are just as.much interested in infant welfare us any others." Mr. Paling (Socialist, Doncaster): "You are more interested in keeping your money." *

"Oh," rats!" ■exclaimed. Lady Astor, amid roars of laughter, renewed a moment later at-her expense-when she appealed to Mr. Greenwood: ''Don't damn a thing because it happens to come.from the other Bide."

Mr. Neville Chamberlain, defended the change his Bill introduces so persuasively that tho Opposition appeared half convinced. The Socialists, he pointed out, were defending the old system even while they complained that it had not permitted full development of services on which they set great store. The new methods of money distribution would satisfy every area's requirements; the work of the voluntary organisations would be secured, and the Ministry of Health would possess ways and means of keeping the local authorities up to the scratch. .......

When the division came the House by 206 to 130 votes decided toilet the Minister's proposal stand., , . . :