POOR LAW RELIEF

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19108, 29 February 1924, Page 5

POOR LAW RELIEF

THE POPLAR GUARDIANS.

CANCELLATION OF ORDEFv. BESULTLESS DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. Press Association —By 'i*legr»ph—Copyright LONDON, February 21. The Poplar debate was opened in the House of Commons by a Liberal member, Mr Frank Briant, who proposed a motion condemning the action of the Minister of Health in cancelling the Poplar order and remitting any likely surcharge made thereunder, as calculated to encourage illegality and extravagance. The resolution urged that the real remedy for difficult or necessitous areas was to be found in the reform of London government and of the Poor Law system. He pressed the Government to introduce at the earliest moment reforms of the Poor Law system, which would deal with the existing anomalies. Mr Keens seconded the motion. Mr J. Wheatley (Minister of Health), replying, denied the allegation that he had surrendered to Poplar. H.'.s speech was largely an attack on his Conservative predecessors for inaction in the matter. In the course of describing the growth of the controversy Mr Wheatley declared: "We have only done what our predecessors had not the courage to tackle. The late Government always knew that Poplar was breaking the law to the extent of £2OOO a week." Replying to an interruption, the Minister explained that Poplar was not yet immune from the surcharge. The only occasion on which the Conservatives had not remitted the surcharges on the Poplar Guardians was in respect of an expenditure of £lO for school bands, which played outside the prisons in which the Poplar Guardians were detained. Mr Wheatley concluded by defending his action, and promised reform of the Poor Law system at the earliest possible moment. Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, in moving the Conservative amendment declaring that the amount of Poor Law relief should be calculated on a lower scale than the earnings of an independent workman who is maintaining himself bv his labour, stated that Mr Wheatley, in remitting the surcharges in anticipation, had acted ultra vires. Mr Aouith said the motion was not intended to embarrass the Government, but to assert a vital principle in foor Law administration. He considered that Mr Wheatley had not dealt with the real issue. Mr Asquith invited the Government to offer assurances with regard to the sanctioning of future illegal expenditure. Mr MacDonald declared that the Government did not defend the Poplar administration. Mr Wheatley had merely availed himself, wisely or unwisely, of his powers to overcome the difficulties of the Poplar administration. No illegal expenditure had been, or would be, sanctioned. Towards the close of the debate the Liberals showed a disposition not to press their motion, but Sir W. Joynson-Hicks moved the closure, -which was defeated by 295 votes to 228. The effect of this was that the Liberal motion and the Conservative amendment were talked out, and the debate came to an inconclusive end. The majority included a number of Liberals. — Heuisr.