§ SIB F. CHANNING () Northamptonshire, E.To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state, from the accounts of the Hollesley Bay labour colony as examined by the Local Government Board, how he arrives at the figures of £100,000 as representing the cost of the settlement in less than four years, and of £22,000 a year as the net loss per annum of the settlement; and what were the receipts set off against the total gross cost of £100,000.
(Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend no doubt refers to my speech in the House on Friday last. The sum of £100,000 mentioned by me as the gross cost of the estate was a round figure; the exact sum is £97,287. This is made up of £43,475, representing the total cost of purchase, and £53,812, representing the gross cost of maintenance from the date of the transfer of the farm colony to the Central Body, 11th December, 1905, to the 28th ultimo, a period of about two and a quarter years. As regards the sum of £22,000, I see from the manuscript note of my speech that this should be £21,000. This also was a round figure. The exact figure supplied to me by the Central Unemployed Body is £20,954, and relates to the year ended 31st March, 1907. The receipts to be
| Period. | Average gross cost of maintenance per head per week. | Deduct average receipts from sales &c., per head per week. | Net cost of maintenance per head per week. |
| s. | s. | s. | |
| 1st April, 1906, to 31st March, 1907 | 37.34 | 7.16 | 30.18 |
| 1st April, 1907, to 28th February, 1908 | 44.12 | 11.97 | 32.15 |
§ The payments made by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London in aid of the maintenance of the wives and children of the men sent to the colony are included in the above statement, but the annual charge in respect of the loan raised to defray the costs of the purchase of the colony is not included. I have no
554§ set oft against the total gross cost of £97,287 incurred between 11th December 1905 and 28th February last amount to £12,078 7s. 11d.
§ SIR F. CHANNINGTo ask the President of the Local Government Board, what has been the average cost per man per week, and what is now the average cost per man per week, at Hollesley Bay and at Laindon, as shown in the accounts as examined by the Local Government Board; whether this cost includes the maintenance of the wives and children of the men in those labour colonies; what is the average number of wives and children so included and the average number of men in the colonies with wives and children; and what is the corresponding cost per man with wife and similar proportion of children in the metropolitan workhouses and in the workhouses of provincial towns and in rural counties.
(Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As regards the farm colony at Hollesley Bay, the following statement gives the particulars desired of the average cost of maintenance of each man sent to the colony during the financial year ended on 31st March, 1907, and similar particulars relating to the period between 1st April, 1907 and 28th February, 1908.
information as to the number of women and children dependent on the men sent to the colony during the period covered by the statement. As regards the branch workhouse at Laindon I recently gave the cost per inmate as 24s. per week. This rate was based on the latest figures in my possession of one year's 555 expenditure at that institution, after giving credit for the value of the produce sold or consumed, and on an average number of inmates taken at 143. It includes a figure for the cost of the relief given separately by the guardians to the wives and children. I am not able to give the precise information asked for as regards the number of wives and children as distinguished from the cost of their relief, but I am informed that the largest number of inmates on any day between 25th February and 7th March, 1908, was ninety-eight, that with three exceptions all the men had dependents, and that the average number of children in each case was between three and four. It is not possible to give corresponding figures of cost with respect to the cases referred to in the last part of the Question; but I may draw the attention of my hon. friend to the statistics given at page 148 of the last Annual Report of the Local Government Board relative to the cost of the relief of indoor and outdoor paupers in London and the provinces.