HC Deb 23 July 1923 vol 167 cc187-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Captain ARTHUR EVANS

I apologise for keeping the House, but I wish to take this opportunity of raising a question which, although it affects Leicester in particular, has a much wider bearing. In comparatively recent times there have been many cases of laxity of control on the part of local authorities, and I wish to ascertain from the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the provision made by local authorities for the control of public money is fairly adequate. I do not propose to give any instances of this laxity outside Leicester. I may mention there have been several regrettable cases in London, and one especially in East Anglia. Leicester, however, is a sufficiently strong case to justify any remarks I may make. I make them solely in the interests of the ratepayers, who have been subjected to experiments in municipalisation which are always risky, and in this case have proved very disastrous. It is an example that will find its counterpart all over the country, and local authorities would be well-advised to look into the administration of public money. Leicester possesses a sewage farm which is a necessary adjunct to municipal government. In recent years it has embarked on a large scale on farming, and presumably the controlling committee is appointed by the Leicester City Council and consists of city councillors, not one of whom is a practical farmer or knows anything about farming. However, in the year 1921–1922 a sum of no less than £40,000 was lost on that farm, and the whole of that amount has to be borne by the local ratepayers. In the next financial year a further loss of £27,000 was sustained. It is not surprising that the council decided to appoint an impartial committee of inquiry who, while letting down the committee as lightly as possible, reported that: Their administration was poor, their control ineffective, and their methods of keeping accounts insufficient and inaccurate; and they went on to recommend the immediate discharge of the manager of the farm. Their report, in addition, puts on record—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow.