The minority report : a criticism : (a summary of which appeared in the Times of 19th June 1910).

Date:
1910
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The minority report : a criticism : (a summary of which appeared in the Times of 19th June 1910). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    13/36 (page 11)
    ,£34,000. This power of recovery, then, would ap- parently be of little effect, except in the cases of those who are comparatively affluent. The bulk of the labouring population, whose means are fluctuating and difficult to gauge, but who now contrive to support themselves and their families, and often even to put something by in a sick club, would be exempt, and it is evidently the intention of the Minority that they should be so. But they are the real difficulty, the real problem. It would perhaps be unfair to say that this aspect of the question of assessment and recovery has not been considered by the Minority. It is evidently part of their deliberate policy that the bulk of the poorer population should be entitled to relief without any question of recovery. In fact, they say in one place, that of course it is impossible to recover from people unless the community places them in the position to pay. Generally speaking, it cannot be said that the Minority scheme is “scientifically precise.” It leaves many questions of principle to be settled by future legislation. It discusses details in the most “ meagre fashion.” It proposes things which have been practically proved to be impossible. The Abolition of the Poor Law and the Proposal to Transfer the Responsibility of Giving Relief to various Administrative Departments other than the Poor Law so-called. The Minority would repeal all Poor Law legislation or Orders subsequent to the Act of Elizabeth, retaining the Act of Elizabeth in order to preserve “ the right to relief” (p. 1030). The Act of Elizabeth would then be carried out by the several administrative departments specified: the Poor Law would be “abolished” as a separate branch of administration, but would reappear in education, sanitation, and industry. The Majority ' criticise this proposal on the ground that it would lead to much overlapping, and that the new authorities being elected for another purpose would consider the ques-