Ministry of National Insurance (Hansard, 21 February 1952)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton)
Although the expenditure concerned in this Vote comes under six different sub-heads, there are two factors alone that have caused these increases in expenditure.
First, on salaries, there was an increase of pay awarded in February, 1951, that came too late for inclusion in last year's Estimates, and that involves extra expenditure in my Department of £573,000. Since then there has been the recent pay increase operating from January, 1952, which amounted to £333,000, which makes a toal of £906,000. That total is reduced owing to the staff reductions that have taken place during the financial year. These staff reductions have amounted to 750 during the year. so that the Ministry's staff averages 500 less over the year. That will mean that the net amount is £790,000 in respect of salaries, and from that the Committee will notice there will be a recovery from the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund amounting to 441 £711,000 in respect of administration, which will reduce the net figure.
The second factor, which is the more important, both in amount and also in the reason for this Supplementary Estimate, is that there has been a slight correction necessary on the original Estimate, owing to the fact that the previous Government took an over-cautious view as to the probable extent of unemployment and sickness during the current financial year. The original Estimate was based on an average figure of unemployment of 285,000, but in fact the average has been 238,000.

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He said that the previous Government took an over-cautious view, but this provision for unemployment was made in the original Act, and is not varied from year to year.

§ Mr. Turton
Perhaps I may explain in further detail. Each year, in the Estimates, we have to provide something for the Exchequer share of the contribution, and that share depends on the number of persons in insured employment—the insured population. Secondly, of course, it will be decreased by any number of persons who were receiving sick benefit or unemployment benefit and were receiving credits when no stamps have been paid for. Each year, we have to make an Estimate of what will be the probable number of unemployed and sick at the time. Last year, an unduly cautious figure was taken, and, for that reason, we find ourselves faced with that figure of £1,500,000 which I am explaining, and I was saying that the unemployment figure went down to 238,000 instead of being 285,000.
With regard to the sickness rate, the expected average rate of 850,000, in fact, proved to be no more than 800,000. Last year, there was a big influenza epidemic, and the right hon. Lady who was then Minister of National Insurance was quite right in making good provision for sickness rates during that time. The insured population was estimated to be 21,280,000, and we find that the actual figure will be 21,470,000, an increase of 190,000.
The result of this increase in the insured population, and of the decreases in the numbers of sick and unemployed, 442 means that there will be more contributions being paid into the Funds, and that the Exchequer share of these increased contributions will be £1,200,000. The difference of about £250,000 between these two figures is contributed by the fact that last year there was a similar over-cautious Estimate, and this year we have to pick up that factor, and that is how we get the figure of £1,500,000.
Just as the unemployment figures have been less than the previous Government anticipated, that means that there will be a saving in expenditure on extended unemployment benefit of £750,000. These factors bring the total Supplementary Estimate to the net figure of £904,000. I hope the Committee will regard that as a satisfactory explanation, but I shall be glad to answer any other points that are raised at a later stage.

§ Dr. Edith Summerskill (Fulham, West)
I think the Committee will recognise that the increases in salaries account in the main for this Supplementary Estimate, and no one here will contend that this expenditure could be avoided. What surprises me is that this Supplementary Estimate submitted today fails entirely to take into account the increased cost of living, and particularly the proposal to charge a shilling for prescriptions and for certain other essential treatment under the National Health Service, which, in my opinion, will bear most hardly on pensioners, widows and dependent children, for whom the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is responsible. Is it contended by the Parliamentary Secretary that medical treatment for the aged and children is not an essential which must be taken into consideration in the family budget?

§ Mr. Turton
To which sub-head is the right hon. Lady referring?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am relating my remarks to all the sub-heads, and I want the hon. Gentleman to explain why these things are not included in many of them.

§ The Chairman
Can the right hon. Lady tell me which of the subjects dealt with in these Supplementary Estimates is related to the remarks she is now making to the Committee?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am quite prepared to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the 443 reductions which he hopes to make of £750,000.

§ The Chairman
That is a saving, which cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate.

§ Dr. Summerskill
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned savings and went into some detail on the question. Am I not allowed to reply?

§ The Chairman
I did not notice that; I was perhaps otherwise engaged at the time, but it is out of order.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I think you might exercise your discretion in this matter, Sir Charles. As the Parliamentary Secretary brought up this question, and was questioned upon it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), may I not answer the hon. Gentleman? The whole Committee has sat here listening to him, yet, when I refer to that point, I am refused.

§ The Chairman
I have no discretion in the matter. I have to carry out the rules of the House.

§ Mr. Turton
On a point of accuracy, may I say that I did not discuss this matter? I was questioned, not on this point, but on the other sub-head concerning £1,500,000, which I explained as being due to the fact that there were fewer people unemployed. I believe that I am right in mentioning that fact, and in explaining that the gross total is less by reason of the saving, without going into detail on that point.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I think the Committee will recall that the Parliamentary Secretary drew our attention to the fact that savings had been effected. After that be paused, because he felt it was a matter for congratulation. I feel that I can return to the point and at least question him upon it. If he puts his case and addresses himself to that point, can I not ask him why this sum was not used for other purposes?

§ The Chairman
It cannot be done.

§ Dr. Summerskill
That is the case which I was going to put.

§ Mr. Thomas Price (Westhoughton)
May I attempt to clarify this matter? I submit that the Estimate as it stands is 444 the net result of the debit and credit items in the schedule, and that therefore my right hon. Friend is in order in referring to the credit item for which the Minister is seeking approval.

§ The Chairman
If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 40 he will find which items are in order and which are not. Items A to I are in order. Then he will see the word "Less" below them, relating to expected savings. These items are not in order.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Am I in order if I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Supplementary Estimate on page 40 is required in the year ending 31st March, 1952, and ask him why certain provision has not therefore been made for people who will be in need between 1st March and 31st March? That is specifically stated in the Supplementary Estimate.

§ The Chairman
No, because it is not in the Estimate.

§ Dr. Summerskill
If we are discussing Estimates which cover a certain period I should have thought it would be in order to refer to that period.

§ The Chairman
It is only in order to refer to what is in the Estimate.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am prepared to defer to that Ruling. As the 1s. on the prescription is to be imposed on 1st March, I wanted to ask how those people are to manage between 1st March and 31st March, if the Minister does not cover them.

§ The Chairman
That appears to be quite a reasonable question, but it is not in order on the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Thank you, Sir Charles.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
Cannot we ask whether it is not included?

§ The Chairman
No, that is not the point. We can deal only with the Supplementary Estimate which is before the Committee.

§ Mr. Ross
Let us take the contribution to the Industrial Injuries Fund, upon which an additional £100,000 is to be spent. Are we not entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has 445 taken into consideration the need for the medical appliances which will be required by the people who are injured, and whether he has covered it in the £100,000?

§ The Chairman
Certainly, the hon. Gentleman can ask the Minister what it is all about and why he wants the money.

§ Dr. Summerskill
In Class V, National Assistance Board—

§ Mr. Turton
I did not know that it was in order to take two Votes together. I was only dealing with one.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
Here are two Votes for which the same Ministry are responsible. The Ministry of National Insurance Vote covers both the National Insurance Scheme and the National Injuries Scheme, and the other Vote covers the National Assistance Board, for which the Minister are responsible. I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could discuss both these parts of Class V together. It is within your discretion, Sir Charles.

§ The Chairman
It is not within my discretion upon Supplementary Estimates.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I understood that on these occasions it is optional who should open the debate, either the Minister or myself. I inquired from the Clerks at the Table before I sat down. If I had been opening the debate, I should have put questions both upon National Insurance and National Assistance, and the Minister would have answered those questions.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Lady would not have put those questions, because I would have stopped her. I could not have allowed her to do it.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I took all the precautions I could beforehand, but it is not the first time that a woman has been misled. Very well, then; I shall have to defer my remarks. It is a pity. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it makes a very ragged debate if he and I have to get up again. I am anxious that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee should have every opportunity, but it appears that we are duplicating.
446 Let me refer to page 41, Ministry of National Insurance, Sub-head I, relating to a contribution of L100,000 to the Industrial Injuries Fund. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this further amount may be used to cover medical treatment and appliances for those who are incapacitated in industry. I think this is in order. I would remind him that last night he and I faced each other across this Table and had a kind of mutual admiration society, because I congratulated him upon introducing the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis scheme, which derives from the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act.
Last night that scheme was approved by the House. When it comes into operation it will have the effect of giving to the totally incapacitated man certain allowances. I want to know whether the Minister is today reducing that amount by an amount equivalent to the medical expenses in which the men will be involved. Unless the Minister includes in this Supplementary Estimate medical expenses for these men, these totally incapacitated men will be called upon to pay for their treatment out of the allowances which the Minister gave to them last night. I think that is a fair argument.

§ Mr. Turton
The right hon. Lady has been a Minister of this Department, and I feel sure that she is well aware that the benefits under the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis scheme are paid out of the fund and not out of the Exchequer. Subhead I is related to the Exchequer contribution under Section 2 (3) of the Act. It has nothing to do with any payment of benefit, which comes purely out of the fund.

§ Dr. Summerskill
As the result of announcements made by the present Government, these men will now be compelled to pay for the treatment of these diseases themselves. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to make provision for those payments; otherwise, the 40s. which he gave them yesterday will dwindle away in medical expenses. I am not surprised that the miners of this country should threaten to withdraw their labour on Saturdays—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—whether we approve of it or not —when they know that their own people suffering from byssinosis and pneumoconiosis will be called upon to pay for 447 their own medical treatment. They know that it will not only be 1s. for one prescription, but that there will be dozens of prescriptions every year for the rest of their lives.
Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think about this point very carefully. So far as I can see, his is the Department which must face up to this expenditure. Perhaps he will tell me what other Departments can look after those who are suffering from industrial injuries. It is his responsibility. Last night he agreed that it was his responsibility. We were all pleased to think that the Bill for which the previous Labour Government were responsible in the first place had at last borne fruit. Now he cannot come here the day after—indeed the afternoon after—and say: "Yes, I gave these totally disabled men 40s. a week, but they have to pay for their medical benefit out of it."
I see under none of these subheads any provision for meeting the increase in the cost of living, particularly with regard to these health charges. I do not think it is necessary for me to provide evidence to the Committee that the cost of living has increased. I need only ask hon. Members to read Sub-head A, where under "Salaries" we find Additional provision required to meet increases in pay. Then under Sub-head C, Incidental Expenses, we see: Additional provision required mainly to meet an increase in cost of messengers' uniforms and office cleaning. Then under Sub-head D we find that additional provision is required to meet increases in salaries. All these increases were made because there was conclusive evidence that the cost of living had increased. If it is necessary to come to the Committee for a Supplementary Estimate to meet the increased salaries of the organised workers, then I say it is the duty of the Minister to include these increases in the pensions and allowances of the unorganised pensioners, widows and dependent children.
The Parliamentary Secretary must not think that I am irresponsible in this matter, for I have been the Minister. He may say that it is quite impracticable to allow pensions and allowances 448 to fluctuate from week to week. I know that. It is the last thing I would suggest. In one of these subheads reference is made to the fact that an increase of assistance was made by the previous Labour Government last July. Before that increase was made, I considered it carefully. I realised that as the months went on I could not consult from month to month the cost-of-living index and adjust pensions and allowances accordingly, I was well advised on this and the advisers of the Parliamentary Secretary are quite right if they say it is impracticable.
However, I will say that if in July the Labour Government had known when making these allowances that medical treatment was to be paid for, that the poorest in the community would be called upon to spend some of their pensions or allowances on what is a necessity in the home, I would not have allowed the sum to go forward which is mentioned in the Estimates today. Therefore, when the Parliamentary Secretary discusses National Assistance, I hope he will tell me how he proposes to answer those questions which I have put to him today.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
In putting a few questions on these Supplementary Estimates, may I first ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his right hon. Friend has made any decision, in conformity with the powers vested in him in the Act, to have a general review of this scheme and whether any provision is made in these Estimates for that purpose?
I also want to ask questions about one or two of the items here, particularly item E on page 40, in which supplementary provision is made for a sum of £8,000 to met the charges falling upon the Ministry for appeal tribunals, referees and medical boards. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 41 and to the reasons given there for this additional provision being required? Is it because there has been an increase in the number of cases to be dealt with by medical boards and tribunals? Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us more information about this, because it is a matter of great importance?
I am not un-connected with this Act nor with its provisions. One of the most important changes made in the Industrial Injuries Act in particular, and, 449 to a lesser extent, in the National Insurance Act, was that we provided for what became generally known as administrative justice rather than the normal courts of law. It was a very big change and we find here that the Ministry have to make additional provision for it. That being so, I believe we are entitled to ask some questions.
That decision was made by the Government in which I had the privilege of being a Minister. It was made with the consent of all hon. Members. We had lively discussions on this matter in Standing Committee where we had the benefit of the advice of no fewer than 17 lawyers. There was a good deal of concern about this new procedure, particularly about the provisions for industrial injuries benefits of all kinds. I hope it is in order to refer to something relevant to this which has disturbed me.
The last report we had from the Ministry of National Insurance about the working of the scheme from 5th July, 1949, to 31st December, 1950, was the first report on the full working of the scheme. That was because one of the benefits only came into operation on 5th July, 1949, which was 12 months after the scheme had begun. I have been paying particular attention to some of the provisions in this respect because, prior to the new Workmen's Compensation Act coming into operation, several years' experience prompted me to take particular interest in finding out how the new system of adjudication has been working —whether it is fulfilling all our expectations and hopes, or whether it is failing.
For example, Table 26 gives some figures about the medical appeal tribunals and an analysis of decisions given in 1950. We find that the total number of appeals by claimants amounted to 6,598. Does the Parliamentary Secretary regard that number of appeals as disturbingly high? It means that 6,598 applicants were not satisfied with the assessment of their disablement made by the medical boards and consequently took the opportunity open to them under the Act of appealing to the medical appeal tribunal. It is quite clear that the number of cases is increasing, and, therefore, that increased provision has to be made in this Supplementary Estimate.
If the number of appeals increases, the Ministry should give the matter 450 serious attention. Actually, it is not the business of the Ministry to behave as an employer or as an insurance company covering the employer. I say this factually. This is a service to which the men themselves contribute. I ask the Committee to note that one of the great changes made was that under the Industrial Injuries Act, for the first time in the history of this country and the world, the workers employed in industry made a contribution from their wages to cover the risk of their own accidents. I do not think our example has yet been followed by any other country, although I know that an immense amount of interest has been taken all over the world.
I know that as I am an ex-Minister, and from trade union and other circles with which I am connected. Therefore, the whole scheme and every provision in the scheme is under scrutiny because of its revolutionary departure from the accustomed method of making provision for loss of income, wages and salaries by those who meet with accidents in industry. That is why we are entitled to take this opportunity of examining it.

§ The Chairman
We cannot deal with the Industrial Injuries Act now. We can only deal with the additional sum which the Ministry are asking for.

§ Mr. Griffiths
With respect, Sir Charles, this is a Supplementary Estimate of the Ministry of National Insurance. The Industrial Injuries Act is one of the services for which provision is to be made, and, indeed, the point to which I am making particular reference, namely, the medical appeal tribunals, arises out of that Act.

§ The Chairman
I can allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that, but we cannot go through the whole of the details of the working of the Industrial Injuries Act.

§ Mr. Griffiths
We are being asked to vote a Supplementary Estimate to make increased provision for the medical appeal tribunals. Surely we are entitled to ask why, and we are also entitled to ask whether the Ministry themselves are happy about coming to Parliament to ask for such additional sums.
I have cited the fact that over 6,000 appeals have been made against the decisions of the medical boards. Fifty 451 per cent. of those appeals succeeded. Surely that is a very big proportion. I thought I saw the Parliamentary Secretary shake his head. Am I not putting the right figures?

§ Mr. Turton
Yes.

§ Mr. Griffiths
It disturbs me that 50 per cent. of those who appealed against the decisions of the medical boards found that their appeals were justified. Indeed, awards were made in their favour. I therefore put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, since he is asking for an extra provision of £8,000 for these medical appeal tribunals, that we are entitled to ask him whether he is now satisfied that the machinery is working well. I should be very much happier if no increased provision were asked for this purpose, because I regard it as a matter to be disturbed about. We ought to ask the Minister whether he does not agree that this extra provision calls for a full inquiry as to why he has to come to Parliament and ask for it.
I approach this from the point of view of a principle which I myself adopted as a Minister, namely, the less of the total money available we spend upon adjudication the better. One of the major reasons why people were completely dissatisfied with the old scheme and were anxious for a new one was the enormous proportion of money under the old Workmen's Compensation Act which was wasted in litigation of all kinds. I should be very unhappy if the amount of money spent under the new scheme continued to increase in this way.
These Supplementary Estimates are, in the main, to meet the cost of the schemes brought forward by my right hon. Friend; I would only add to what she has said that since there has been a change of Government there has been a change of policy, and we shall take other opportunities very quickly indeed to bring home to the Government the fact that what the Labour Government gave the old age pensioners with one hand this Government is busily taking away with the other.

§ Mr. Turton
I think it would be convenient for me to reply to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on Sub-head E 452 relating to the medical appeal tribunals. There is an even larger provision for medical appeal tribunals than appears from this Sub-head. The deficiency of the medical appeal tribunals is £14,000, but there will be £6,000 less spent on local tribunals. That is how we reach the net figure of £8,000.
It is true that the number of appeals is increasing. I think on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is bound to happen, because this is a growing service, and as we move further away from workmen's compensation to the industrial injuries scheme we shall get more cases and more examinations.
May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the report from which he quoted. He will see that for the whole year in 1949 the examinations numbered 78,000. By 1950 the number had risen to 148,000, and it is still rising. That is why we are having to make greater provision in this Supplementary Estimate for appeals. The proportion of appeals to examinations is very small. There are 17,000 cases being taken every month, and, therefore, the figure of 6,500 which he quoted is a very small proportion for the whole year out of that large number of examinations.
I agree that the figure of 50 per cent. which he mentioned in relation to successful appeals is a very considerable proportion, but that is really a very satisfactory result. It shows the need for this adjudication.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
It is satisfactory in this sense, that 50 per cent. of the claimants had their appeals upheld by the medical appeal tribunals, but if I were still in the Ministry I would be disturbed because this is one of the things which we intended to get away from. We must remember that 50 per cent. of the appeals —those which succeeded—have succeeded against decisions made by the boards for which the Ministry is responsible. That is why I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter to which he should give attention, because the fact that 50 per cent. of the appeals have succeeded indicates that perhaps the medical boards are not functioning as efficiently as they ought. That is my point.

§ Mr. Turton
When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the appeals succeeding it means a variation in the award; 453 and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in many cases under the Industrial Injuries Act there are new factors coming along which often have the effect of varying the award. To that extent one can use the term "success." But when one considers the large number of 200,000 cases going through each year, the 3,000 which have involved some variation in the award is a very small proportion.
Let me say a final word on expense. I am fully aware of the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about the importance of keeping down the costs of adjudication. In my early practice at the Bar I had some experience of workmen's compensation, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the expense of the medical appeal tribunals under the Industrial Injuries Act is far less than the expense involved under workmen's compensation.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
It would be of great help and advantage if—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can help me —we could in future have an analysis of every pound spent included in this report, how much is spent on administration and how much on litigation. Could the Ministry also give us, as a comparison, how much was spent in those fields prior to 1948 under the old Workmen's Compensation Act?

§ Mr. Turton
I will take that request into close consideration but quite clearly compliance with the right hon. Gentleman's last request would be impossible as expenditure under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not related to any Ministry.

§ Mr. Griffiths
The hon. Member will find that in the Ministry, which was the successor of the Home Office in this respect, that information is available for certain principal industries and was provided for us every year.

§ Mr. T. Price
It is recorded in the Report of the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation.

§ Mr. Turton
That matter will be closely investigated. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will regard this Supplementary Estimate as necessary, and will agree to it.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Will not the hon. Gentleman answer my questions? I put a series of them.

§ Mr. Turton
I found it difficult to relate the right hon. Lady's questions, which were cleverly directed, to any particular Subhead. I do not know how I shall keep within the Rules of Order if I answer them.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tries as hard as I did?

§ Mr. Turton
I was asked how we are to provide for certain charges which have not yet been incurred and laid before Parliament. I think the right answer is the one given by the late Lord Oxford on an earlier occasion—we shall have to "wait and see." Until we see what legislation is passed by the House, we cannot devise methods of payment out of the funds which we hold to provide for it.

§ Dr. Summerskill
But the hon. Member knows that it is common practice in the Ministry of National Insurance to provide for certain anticipated expenditure. That is why—as I have already said, pensions cannot fluctuate weekly—last July I provided for certain anticipated expenditure. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that certain charges will be imposed on 1st March. These Supplementary Estimates cover the whole of March. I want to know how his Ministry is to provide for that period.

§ Mr. Turton
My reply to the right hon. Lady must be that until we have seen what eventual form legislation is to take it would be unwise for us to give the House a clear indication of the provision we are to make from the Fund for that purpose. If I said anything more than that I should be ruled out of order on the subject.

§ Dr. Summerskill
May I take that as a half-promise, in response to my pressure, that the Government are to increase pensions on Budget day?

§ Mr. Ross
Under Sub-head A, I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking for an extra £790,000 on salaries. We have recently been told that the Government, having discovered that they can dispense with a number of civil servants, have decided to get rid of 10,000. We have also been led to believe that some of these will be accounted for in the Ministry of National Insurance. Yet here we are, between now and 31st March, instead of spending less money on civil 455 servants, spending more. I think we are entitled to some kind of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how the cut in the Civil Service is affecting his Department and the amount spent on salaries.

§ Mr. Turton
I think that the hon. Member was not in his place when I gave that explanation. I explained how this sum of £790,000 was related to two pay increases, one given in February, 1951, when the right hon. Lady was Minister of National Insurance, and the pay increase awarded in January, 1952. I stated that those two pay increases accounted for £906,000, but that they had been reduced because we had been able to make certain savings in staff, and those savings, effected both by my right hon. Friend's predecessor and my right hon. Friend have amounted, in the course of this current financial year, to 750. That will be an average throughout the year of 500, and that has reduced the Supplementary Estimate from £906,000 to £790,000.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was not in his place when I was giving all the facts of what was happening in the matter of salaries in relation to these Supplementary Estimates.

§ Mr. Ross
I was in my place and the explanation is a little more explicit now than it was then. What I still want to get at is whether—we are not near 31st March—some anticipated saving consequent on a further cutting down of salary earners within the Ministry of National Insurance has been taken into account.

§ The Chairman
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not attempt to reply to that as he would be out of order.

§ Mr. Percy Daines (East Ham, North)
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), is not trying to encourage the Ministry to undertake any cutting of staff in the Ministry. I do not think the Committee has ever really appreciated the fine service given, and the terrific job undertaken by the previous Minister and his senior officials in creating out of a mass of bits of other Ministries one of the finest services that we have the right to expect.
456 Something should be said in Parliament in appreciation of the human, sympathetic understanding that this fine public service gives to the public. Everyone of us here knows by the absense of complaints in our postbags the excellent service that is being given. I hope that other hon. Members will, as some of us already do, keep in close touch with their local Ministry office and take a sympathetic interest in it. We are always well received. If I have strayed a trifle from the bounds of order to say a word of praise and appreciation of the magnificent staff of the Ministry I am sure it is due to them.

§ Mr. Turton
I thank the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), for that very well-deserved tribute to our staff. They have worked wonderfully well, with very little publicity. I would add that savings which we have been able to effect have been caused by the efficiency of our staff in devising more modern methods of doing the work. By that means we have been able to reduce the total number of staff, although that has not been done by turning off members of the staff but chiefly by stopping recruitment. That is how this saving that I talked about has been effected.

§ Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)
I see that savings have been made by closing certain offices throughout the country. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us an undertaking that before any of these offices are closed the advisory committees which have been set up by the Ministry should at least be asked some questions about it and their advice taken into consideration before the closures are brought about?

§ The Chairman
That is a saving and discussion of it is out of order.