The existing return is incomplete. It does not give, for instance, the whole of the expenditure of the Labour Department on direct Public Assistance, amounting in 1920-21 to 35,000,000l. and to 79,000,000l. in round numbers for 1921-22. In fact, the total amount recorded in the Return 139. 1922, for unemployed expenditure is 9,700,000l. in Unemployed Insurance for England and Wales and 1,000,000l. for Scotland, and 104,000l. for the Unemployed Workmen's Act for England and Wales and Scotland. The return is also not up to date. For instance, the figures given in the last issue, 139. 1922, for Poor Law expenditure, 32,000,000l. for England and Wales from the rates alone, are those for 1920, while the figures for 1921, 35,700,000l. from the rates alone,* are given in the report of the Ministry of Health published about the same time.† In this connexion we have suggested, not only that later figures were available, but we have also submitted that in future loans and overdrafts should figure under Poor Law expenditure. For instance, the report of an enquiry made this year into the Sheffield Union expenditure showed that the Sheffield Guardians owed no less than 670,000l. at the end of September 1921 for money borrowed for expenditure on this relief, and their funded debt at the present time is no less than 400,000l. Moreover, the total amount of loans sanctioned in 1921-22, was 4,933,2001. § under the Act of 1887, and apparently 5,819,2587. under the Act of 1921, of which 1,220,8927. lapsed (p. 88). No statement of this account could be considered accurate which omitted such large items.

We have suggested that it would be an advantage to give the above expenditure in the return and to state in a note how much of it comes from current taxation and current contributions from employers and employed, how much from loans, how much from past accumula

* In 1913 the Poor Law expenditure from the rates was 12,060,000l. Advocates of Old Age Pensions, etc., declared that they would diminish Poor Law expenditure and close the workhouses, but such measures, accord. ing to the law of 'acceleration,' always create more poverty than they provide for. Old Age Pensions for England and Wales cost 18,320,000l. in 1921, being in fact outdoor relief from taxes instead of rates.

+ Cmd. 1713. 1922. The total expenditure of the Guardians for 1921 was 42,000,000l.

Report, p. 7.

§ Cmd. 1713, p. 87.

HOME

lorad

ance

dandi

Englands

not up

Last

Wir

those for l

the rate

ty of Ba

figures

at in fr

tions. The public does not appreciate the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is bankrupt,* any more than it understands that the unemployed insurance scheme has become a scheme of outdoor relief working side by side with a system of outdoor relief under the Poor Law but lacking the essential safeguards of the Poor Law system, namely, expert enquiry into the circumstances of the applicants.

Next as to Housing. The expenditure on Housing is also not up to date. The figures given in the Return, 139. 1922, for Housing as to approximate expenditure are 1,430,000l. for England and Wales, and 45,3721. for Scotland. These figures are for 1920, but even so they do not appear to be correct, for an answer in Parliament gives the estimated contributions from the Exchequer towards the annual loss in assisted housing schemes for 1920-21 as 500,000l. from the rates and 950,000l. from the taxes and 2,528,5521. for expenditure under Section 1 of the Housing Additional Powers Act. The same expenditure for 1921-22 is given as 750,000. from the rates and 5,070,000l. from the taxes and 4,537,8847. under the Housing Additional Powers Act. In addition to this, it appears that for the three years in question, 1920-23, the total expenditure by local authorities is estimated at 185,000,000l.‡

The

We asked in 1918, and we ask again, for a complete statement of the number of the beneficiaries. heading of the Return, (139. 1922), on the front page states that it gives the total number of persons directly benefiting. If we take this heading seriously and add up the individual totals, they give a grand total of 38,000,000-in fact, nearly 39,000,000-for Great Britain, out of a population of 42,000,000. It is true that a note on page 5 of the Return speaks of many persons receiving under two or more Acts; but this, one may submit, gives no idea of the immense

* 'The Unemployed Insurance Fund, which began in 1920 with an accumulated surplus of 22,000,0002., will have spent by June 1923, according to the forecast of the Government actuary, that amount together with all current contributions and a further 27,000,000l., borrowed from the Treasury on the security of future subscriptions. In plain terms the fund is bank rupt. Simple relief is masquerading as insurance.'- 'Times,' March

8, 1923.

Instead s

amount of overlapping which must take place if any statistical value is to be attached to the component figures. It should, however, be added that these last are open to criticism. It appears, for instance, of no statistical value to give under the heading of persons benefiting from the Unemployed Insurance Act the number of 9,917,000, which, on reference to the notes, turns out to be the estimated number of persons insured. The average number of the unemployed appears to be not more than one-sixth of this estimated number. To clear up this point we have, in our Petition of Jan. 28, 1923, repeated a suggestion, which we have often made before, that complete figures should be given as to individuals and as to family units, or, better still, that a complete register should be kept to prevent overlapping, waste, and fraud, and we have added in an appendix to the Petition a suggestion we have often made in the columns of the Times' and elsewhere, that typical districts should be taken if it should prove impossible to provide this for the whole country.

We gather from Mr Baldwin that he has made some enquiries on these lines, and that he rules out the first suggestion on the ground of expense; while he is not convinced that the second, that of the register, would not be both unpractical and too costly. The Denison House Committee have had before them evidence of & partial system of registration undertaken in London and carried out on a voluntary basis at a comparatively small cost. The experiment has had the desirable result of promoting economy and efficiency and also of exposing fraud. For instance, one man was discovered to be drawing two War Pensions, one in Kensington and the other in Paddington. He was also getting help from the Mayor's Fund, Church Army, Infant Welfare Centre, and a police pension from Eastbourne, and admitted having defrauded the Paddington Guardians as well. This, of course, is an extreme case; but we have many others we could cite. We have suggested to the new Prime Minister, in his capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer, that certain forms of public relief are of a discretionary character dependent upon the total income of the recipient and therefore closely related, not only to each other, but also to the voluntary

charities; and it is stated that both statutory bodies and voluntary charities have appreciated the value of such registration, both for the prevention of overlapping and for the value of the co-operation made possible between them. Thus Poor Law relief, relief by Borough Councils, relief by education authorities and voluntary charities, have already registered in certain districts with excellent results, and to them might certainly be added Old Age Pensions.

This modified form of registration of relief, while it would not cover the ground, would, we believe, prove of great value if undertaken jointly with voluntary service. We venture to think that it would be a great benefit if a more complete co-operation between statutory public assistance and voluntary charity could be established in this country.* Such a scheme of registration as is here suggested might well become the nucleus of such a movement, but it should in all cases be introduced tentatively and gradually to avoid any possible waste of public money. We are informed that such a scheme has been adopted in one of the Metropolitan Boroughs at a cost of less than 2001. a year, and we suggest that the increased economy and efficiency would justify a still greater outlay. In this connexion the Denison House Committee acknowledges with gratitude the concession Mr Baldwin has made in directing that Government Departments should in future supply information to local authorities and duly accredited organisations in regard to such Government payments as come within the purview of the Prime Minister's Committee.

The need for such a register has for years past been obvious to any reader of the public press, for instances have been given of some families drawing often 41. and 51. a week from overlapping funds and in some cases half as much again. When the limit for the payment of Income Tax is recollected the gross injustice of this abuse will be realised. These two suggestions have the definite support of various public authorities, and the

*Of the value of the charity which is being discouraged by local extravagance no more eloquent example can be given than the Union of Redruth, where the expenditure of the Guardians for relief of distress due to unemployment was 5000l., while no less than 4000l. was provided from voluntary sources (Cmd. 1713, p. 92).

London County Council, having examined the Petition, has passed a resolution in favour of its proposals.

In addition to asking that the total amount expended and the total number of the beneficiaries should be given in the return, we have again asked in our Petition of Jan. 28, 1923, that administrative cost should be given in greater detail, so that comparisons between different localities could be instituted and some standard of administrative cost set up. During the War a Select Committee on National Expenditure discovered that the administrative cost per 1000 persons insured of National Health Insurance was for England 281., Wales 51k, Scotland 361., and Ireland 567. It should be made clear whether this disproportion continues, and if so, to what extent. But information is required for smaller areas. In 1915 I persuaded the London County Council to publish a volume of comparative municipal statistics for the principal towns of the United Kingdom, which may serve as a precedent in this regard, and I was assured at the time of its publication that it was of great value to the officers concerned in the administration of those cities.

In addition to the statement of past expenditure we have suggested that an annual estimate of future expenditure should be given in the return for both central and local authorities. Such estimates have been made by the Ministry of Health for Poor Law expenditure throughout the country, and are regularly produced by some County Councils in respect of municipal and educational expenditure. So far as the State accounts are concerned it is idle to refer individuals to the Parliamentary estimates. It is notorious that supplementary estimates are a regular, serious, and annual factor. This complicates matters; but apart from this the estimates themselves as presented and accounts

* (a) For instance, it should be remembered that the number of persons in receipt of relief in any Union depends largely on the traditions of the Union, and the methods of administration adopted at the time' (Ministry of Health Report, 1922, Cmd. 1713, p. 81). (b) The proportion per 1000 of the population in receipt of relief among East End Unions on March 25, 1922, in Whitechapel was 26.7, in Mile End Old Town 46'6, and 171.1 at Poplar (Cmd. 1713, p. 90). Speaking of Unions generally, the average weekly maintenance cost of institutional relief per head varied from 35s. 11 d. to 21s. 9d. (p. 93) in 1921-22 in institutions; administered under separate regulations from 68s. 21d. to 32s. 31d. (p. 93).

in infirmaries