View report page

THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COUNCILLORS OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM
FOREST
Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have the honour to present my report for the year 1969.
It was a year of such strain for Council and senior staff as I hope we shall not see again,
due to the intensity with which shortage of resources, as seen by those concerned with finance,
clashed with increase in demand, as seen by those in touch with public needs.
Just fifty years before in 1919 the Medical Officer of Health of Walthamstow, Dr. J.J. Clarke,
on the direction of the Council following the Maternity and Child Welfare Act of 1918, put up
excellent recommendations as to what should be done locally. The Council minute reads that having
regard to "the low rateable value of the District, the rates at present amounting to l2/6d in the £,
the Council do not see their way to put the scheme into operation unless the Government make a
contribution of at least 75 per cent of the cost". The Local Government Board then refused the
request of the Council. Frustration is not new.
What principles should guide decisions with regard to allocation of restricted funds in the
Social Services?
At times of shortage there is always a cry for priorities to be evaluated and put in order.
In the most crude and obvious way it can be done but a good list of priorities is a will o' the wisp
objective. The concept that needs can be given an ideal order of precedence which can be defined
by objective scientific criteria is a view which can only be held by those who are not in the real
world at all.
The play of public opinion, the pull of the overt need as against the hidden need (which may
be much greater), or of the needs of those whose image evokes sympathy as against those whose
image evokes rejection (which may be quite unjustified in both cases), all these influence the
shape of the services. It is useless to say one should not be guided by emotion for this is the
motivation for the very existence of the social services. There are very few objective or economic
criteria for doing anything at all about old people, the physically or mentally handicapped or the
homeless. Yet we human beings are united in the determination that something should be done.
Why?
Human values are various, change constantly and display themselves quite differently if
expressed in words or deeds. In recent years in this part of the country, as in others, it has been
taken for granted that ever better medical and social services are expected.
Let us talk less about priorities, press on with making existing services as productive of
human good as can be, and expand as resources allow all those services which, in our personal
opinions, are deserving. Cost benefit analysis is an attractive technique, but in complex social
fields sophisticated techniques are only acceptable if they support conclusions already arrived at
by the common sense. Dr. Goodey's views on page 38 i llustrate delightfully the value of common
sense when we are becoming bemused by statistical abstractions.
We may without discredit accept that others may well have different views, but let no-one
interpret this to mean we might just as well do nothing. Quite the reverse. The needs and expectations
are so great in so many directions that no expansion responsibly proposed would be
unjustified or unappreciated. Many are very urgently needed.
- 4 -