LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Local Government Board have ordered an inquiry into the administration and expenditure of the Board of Guardians of Poplar Union; and, if so, what is the nature of the inquiry, and what are the instructions under which it is being held; and whether adequate opportunity will be given to any ratepayer to appear at this inquiry, and to give such information germane to the inquiry which he may wish to supply," said: My Lords, the notice which I have placed upon the Paper really consists of three Questions, but, of course, the last Question is by far the most important. I have every reason to believe than an inquiry of some sort has been ordered, but I have been unable to ascertain exactly what inquiry it is, and some friends of mine who are interested locally in the expenditure of Poplar have also been unable to get the information for which I ask.
I do not wish to bring any general charge of wasteful or extravagant expenditure against the Poplar Board of Guardians, but the facts and figures as published seem to me to show a very strong prima facie case in that direction. I think it obviously desirable that by some means or another, before some impartial tribunal, the precise facts should be made known, as well as all the difficulties with which the guardians of such a union as Poplar must necessarily have to contend. I should be very sorry 830 indeed if, in putting this Question, I were supposed to be hostile to the granting of any fair assistance or relief to boards of guardians in the East End of London who have great difficulties to cope with, but I do attach the very greatest possible importance to this, that if relief is to be given, either by equalisation of rates over the Metropolis or in any other way, the greatest care should be taken to see that the soundest possible principles of administration are observed, and that every reasonable premium in favour of economy is put before those responsible for local administration.
I quite admit that one or several tests taken by themselves may not carry conviction of a charge of wasteful or extravagant administration. For instance, in some unions the proportion of paupers to the population is very much larger than in others. In some cases expenditure rises rapidly, and, taken by themselves, these tests, as I have said, are not conclusive. But, when you find almost every known test which can be applied tending in the same direction, then I must say I think there is a very strong prima facie case made out for extravagance of administration. In the absence of information which can only be got by such an inquiry as I hope will be instituted, one is thrown back upon published figures.
In Poplar it is the case at the present time that one out of every sixteen of the population is in receipt of Poor Law relief in some form or other; and, if you take the cost of expenditure during the last three or four years, it is shown that since 1901 the actual increase of cost per head per week of the indoor paupers has risen by two shillings—;a very alarming increase. The rates are 12s. in the £ and the actual cost of out-door paupers alone has risen from £16,000 in 1901 to £35,000 in 1905. Now, these facts taken together seem to me to establish a prima facie case that there is something very wrong with the administration. But the case does not stop there, because one can make comparisons with other unions in the immediate neighbourhood of Poplar, which, although it may possibly be said that none of them are individually so poor as Poplar, still 831 cannot be very different in degree. If I take the Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, St. George's, Stepney, and Mile End Unions and add together the populations I find that the total is 539,044 individuals. In the whole of those six unions there were, in 1906, only some 3,000 paupers, whereas, turning to Poplar, with a population of 169,000, I find that in the same year there were nearly 7,000 paupers.
The matter does not even stop there, because the course of events is even more instructive. If it could be said that Poplar had been subject to some sudden emergency of distress perhaps a palliative case could be made out, but Poplar cannot be affected differently from all these other unions, and the course of the history of the other unions has been this. In 1901 there were 2,364 paupers in the six unions I have mentioned. In 1905 they numbered 2,860, or an increase of 500. The increase in Poplar was from 3,481 to 7,384. It seems to me practically certain, on these figures, that there must be something wrong.
I think myself that the facts as to the various classes of property in Poplar perhaps account for that administration to some extent. We are likely to have, I understand, a discussion on the vexed and difficult question of compounding in this House early next week, and I do not wish to trespass on what will be said then, but those of your Lordships who know anything about local administration will appreciate the gravity of these facts. The total rateable value of Poplar is £830,000. Now £370,000 of that rateable value carries no vote or qualification to stand for the board of guardians; £370,000 is the rateable value of public works in respect of which no one is qualified to sit or to take part in local administration. Of the remaining £460,000 only £170,000 is in subjects above £20 annual value, so that £290,000, being under £20 of annual value, is the subject of the vicious system of compounding, and the dwellers in those houses have no first-hand knowledge whatever of what they pay for local administration. Your Lordships, of course, know that the system of compounding makes a certain amount of allowance to the landlord for the collection of the rates, 832 and I think it will show to what extent this vicious system has been carried when I tell you that last year the system of compounding cost the Poplar ratepayers no less than £37,648, or a rate of nearly 1s. in the £ on the whole rateable value of the union. So much for Poor Law matters.
A correspondent has informed me that in the matter of pauper schools there is very grave reason for thinking that the Poplar Guardians have been guilty of considerable extravagance. They have, as I am informed, taken land for their schools at £100 an acre, while I am told much cheaper land quite as suitable could have been obtained close by. My informant says that the internal fittings of the schools are on a most extravagant scale, and he goes so far as to say that £50,000 might have been saved in the fitting up of that one building alone. I am told that the engineering work, amounting to £25,000, was given out without the slightest attempt to make a contract, and that it was not the subject of a contract at all. The general fitting of the school, building is described as being a long way ahead of any public school such as Eton or Harrow. The staircase is of teak, the swimming bath as good as any in London, and I am told that the roof beam in the boys' dining-room would not disgrace the finest cathedral in England.
There may be justification for these things, but what I ask your Lordships is this—;With a rate of 12s. in the £, can the unfortunate people of Poplar afford these luxuries? Just think who it is who has to pay for them. I do not know whether the owners of the public works will get much sympathy from your Lordships, but the people I plead for against this form of local extravagance are those unfortunate people who are just able to keep their heads above water and no more. They have to pay. It may be concealed from them in the vicious system of compounding, and they may think that all they pay the landlord goes in rent, but for every pound which is drawn from them they have to find so many shillings a week for local adminstration. It does not tend to sound administration that the system of compounding should be allowed to go to such an extent 833 as I have described, because it does not seem to the people who can control it that they are really being made to pay.
The reason I am anxious about the inquiry is this. I am informed that the board of guardians have not taken the steps they ought to take to make known the periodical audit of their accounts. I know that so far as Scotland is concerned, when there is to be an audit of the accounts of any local body the date is advertised, and I was under the impression that the same salutary rule held good in England. I am quite certain it ought to be so, and that every ratepayer ought to have an opportunity of appearing before the auditor to examine the accounts of those who are administering his affairs. I am told that the notice on the occasion of the last audit of the Poplar board of guardians was posted only in the hall of the board of guardians and in the workhouse, and that there was no other public advertisement of any kind.
I am glad to be able to say that those who are interested locally in the expenditure of Poplar are moving in the matter. They have formed an association which is strong enough to represent the facts before any impartial inquiry which may be appointed by the Local Government Board. The point which I chiefly want to press upon those responsible for the management of the Local Government Board at the present time is that the facts which I have disclosed do provide at any rate a strong prima facie case for a thorough and impartial inquiry. If there are difficulties so great in Poplar that this expenditure is justifiable, it seems to me very desirable that they should be made known; but if, on the other hand, there has been extravagance, it is at least of equal public importance that the actual facts should be disclosed. That, I believe, can only be done by means of an inquiry under a tribunal as impartial and as strong as I believe the Local Government Board to be.
§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, the House will, I am sure, readily understand and applaud the reasons which have induced the noble Lord to bring 834 this most important matter before the House, but I would very respectfully ask the House not to prejudge the case, because the noble Lord has brought forward some statements from an unknown correspondent, which he calls facts. I respectfully submit that they are, after all, only allegations, and that by going into such details you will prejudge the case. Attention has been drawn in various quarters to the extent of pauperism in the Poplar Union, and the financial position of the union, and other matters affecting the relief of the poor therein, and the President of the Local Government Board thought it desirable to direct Mr. Davy, the chief general inspector of the Board, to inquire and report as regards the general, industrial and financial conditions of the union, its pauperism, and the administration of the guardians and their officers. Mr. Davy is now engaged on these investigations. Representation have, no doubt, been made by the guardians and other bodies that a public inquiry should be held, at which the ratepayers should be heard, and that is what I understand the noble Lord opposite desires. But the President—;and I think the noble Lord will agree with me that he was wise in that decision—;has reserved the decision of this question until Mr. Davis' preliminary inspection is completed, and that will shortly be the case. I shall be happy if I can be of service to the noble Lord in giving him any information he desires.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of his Answer, but I would point out that he has failed to reply to my third Question —;namely, whether Mr. Davy, under his instructions, will be bound to hear and consider any representation which is made to him by those locally interested.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI thought I had answered that Question. The President of the Local Government Board has reserved his decision on that point until Mr. Davy's preliminary inspection is completed, and that will shortly be the case. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no unnecessary delay, and that every publicity will be given which the noble Lord could possibly desire.