HC Deb 26 February 1953 vol 511 cc2314-22
The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has devoted sustained personal attention, to make, as opportunity affords, such changes in the organisation of Government Departments as will simplify administration and reduce costs. As a result of a recent review, some changes are already contemplated and others are under examination.

It is proposed to amalgamate the Ministry of Pensions with the Ministry of National Insurance as regards the award and payment of war pensions and allowances. The new Ministry will be known as the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The medical treatment undertaken by the Ministry of Pensions—including the management of hospitals and the supply of artificial limbs, surgical appliances and invalid vehicles—will be transferred in England and Wales to the Ministry of Health and, in Scotland, to the Department of Health for Scotland.

The greatest care will be taken to ensure that war pensioners and their dependants are not in any way adversely affected by these changes. An additional Parliamentary Secretary will be appointed to the new Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to look after the pensions and allowances of war pensioners. The Central Advisory Committee on war pensions will continue to function.

So far as medical treatment is concerned, such special facilities as war pensioners at present enjoy will be fully safeguarded and, in addition, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to call on the facilities of the whole National Health Service to ensure that the necessary treatment of war pensioners is given by the hospital best able to provide it.

Arrangements will be made, in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland, to meet the requirements of war pensioners resident in Northern Ireland.

A second change which is proposed is the amalgamation of the Ministries of Transport and Civil Aviation. This change has been under consideration for some time and the way to it was paved by the appointment of the same Minister for the two Departments. There will continue to be two Parliamentary Secretaries. one dealing with Transport matters and one with Civil Aviation. The new Ministry will be known as the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation.

The necessary Addresses will be moved in both Houses, with a view to all these changes being effected by Order in Council in the course of this year.

The regional organisation of Government Departments is still under examination to see whether economies could be secured without detriment to the standard of service afforded by the various regional offices. It is hoped to make a definite announcement before long.

Consideration is also being given to reducing the number of local offices throughout the country, including an extension of the practice whereby certain Government local offices undertake, on an agency basis, the work of other Govern. ment local offices.

Mr. Isaacs

Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision will give considerable disappointment to ex-Service men and rather more than disappointment to ex-Service men's organisations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If hon. Members opposite have nonsense in their minds, I cannot help it. I am trying to approach this matter on the general nonpolitical basis upon which this Ministry has always conducted its work, under whatever administration of whatever political party, with an humanity and an efficiency which have earned the admiration of the pensioners and their organisations and of all hon. Members of this House. It is an important subject, to which we shall have to give careful consideration, but there are one or two points I want to put immediately.

First, what is to happen to the special treatment departments of the Ministry, those departments which specialise in the care and attention of the limbless? Are they to be disbanded and put into the National Health Service? What is to be the future of the welfare service? I wonder whether the Prime Minister really knows—he will forgive me for putting it this way—with what admiration all hon. Members look upon that welfare service, and the great things it has done for the pensioners, who feel that they have in the welfare officer a friend and not a Government official? What is to happen to that? Is that going? If so, it will be a great disappointment. What will happen in regard to the care of the orphans? At present the Minister of Pensions is the legal guardian of hundreds of young people and all Ministers of Pensions I know have made them their special care. What is to happen there?

Finally, can the Prime Minister tell us how this can simplify legislation? How can it do so if we take away the work of a special Department, split it up into what appear to be three sections, and put it on to three separate Ministers? What estimate has been made.s to the probable saving in a scheme of this kind?

The Prime Minister

I could not attempt to answer all those carefully considered and very rightly posed questions at Question time or during the period immediately afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely they were considered?"] Obviously these matters must be debated. I think our statement should be carefully studied, and I do not propose this afternoon to attempt to answer questions of detail on what is, after all, a constitutional statement of the rearrangement and regrouping of offices. On the general question of the pensioners and those who have suffered injuries in the war, we regard it on our side as a matter of honour, shared in all parts of the House, that their treatment shall in no circumstances be allowed to deteriorate.

Mr. Isaacs

May I follow that up by a short point? We all accept the honest intention of the Prime Minister to see that they do not suffer, but we are doubtful whether this procedure will work. As there is so much detail to be considered, would the Prime Minister undertake to let us have a White Paper setting out those details before the Order in Council comes up, so that we may debate it with some idea in our minds of what it means?

The Prime Minister

Yes, I think it would be right to give a White Paper on the subject. I have made a statement because we wanted the House to know, for general guidance and information, what way our policy was working, but much more precise and detailed information must be given to the House, and I trust that hon. Members will find an opportunity under the procedure for having careful discussion of the subject.

Mr. Assheton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these reforms in administration will be greatly welcomed in the country, and that, moreover, the fears which have been expressed by the ex-Minister of Labour need raise no anxieties in the House since there are many ways in which the pensioners will benefit from this scheme.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I would remind the House that before these changes can come into effect it will be necessary for Addresses to be moved in the House for the necessary Orders, and so I think we might shorten this period of interrogation.

Mr. Simmons

May I ask the Prime Minister if the House will have adequate information before the debate on these proposed changes takes place and if a full day will be given for it? Also, if the opinions of the ex-Service men's organisations prove to be hostile, will the Prime Minister, as an ex-Service man himself, consider withdrawing the proposal?

The Prime Minister

No changes will take place before the summer holidays, and we have plenty of time to talk about it. I hope that we shall talk about it as friends trying to secure the best service for those who deserve it and have every right to it, and a service which is compatible with any necessary improvement in economy and efficiency.

Mr. H. Morrison

The Prime Minister has made a statement and he has rather indicated that he is not very willing to answer supplementary questions. That seems to me to be unreasonable. It seems that the Prime Minister has taken the attitude that he is not ready or willing to answer any supplementary questions. Surely Ministers, when they make statements of this kind, are ready to answer supplementary questions. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to inform the House on what is perfectly obviously a point on which he ought to be ready to answer, namely, what is the estimated financial saving in both cases?

The Prime Minister

I could not attempt to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We hope that there will be a steady reduction in the expenditure. but how I could be expected to forecast that, arising as it will year after year, I do not know. I cannot possibly see the reason for such an inquiry. As to saying that no one may make a statement and give the House information and guidance on a vast and complicated topic without being prepared to answer several questions on every detail, such a proposition is most unreasonable. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) should associate himself with it.

Mr. C. R. Attlee

But surely the Prime Minister knows that this matter has been considered over a course of years, and one of the matters taken into account has been the feelings of ex-Service men on this point. As the justification now brought forward is that of economy, surely we have the right to know something of what is the rough estimate of the financial saving.

The Prime Minister

I do not think that it would be practicable to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I quite understand that every effort will be made to make party capital out of it. [Interruption.] The shouts of hon. Members opposite are contradicting their intentions, but I trust that the House will await the publication of a White Paper which will give full information in advance, and I have no doubt that before we separate—

Mr. Dodds

Let somebody else handle it.

The Prime Minister

I trust that further information will be given and an opportunity of debating the matter will be found before we separate for the summer holidays.

Mr. Attlee

That is not good enough. These matters have been considered very often. I have often had proposals when I was in the right hon. Gentleman's position in which we had to consider whether this or other changes were justified. I never remember not being provided with some kind of estimate from the Treasury. It would have been a very queer way of doing business if I had not had it.

Hon. Members

Answer.

The Prime Minister

I will gladly answer, but what was actually said by the Leader of the Opposition was not a question but a statement.

Mr. Attlee

I will put it as a question. Has not the right hon. Gentleman had some kind of estimate from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and other Departments of the effects of these changes, or is this merely some sop for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite?

The Prime Minister

We believe that not only as good but a better service can be reached under this system of organisation, and we believe that the reduction of pressure on the public offices will be compatible with efficiency.

Sir E. Boyle

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

A blind decision.

Sir E. Boyle

—will be very widely welcomed by many electors who are not very interested in party controversies in this House but who henceforth will have only to go to one local office on matters relating both to war pensions and National Insurance benefits?

Mr. Peart

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he is anxious to save money it would be better to abandon his "overlord" system?

Mr. H. Nicholls

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the suggestion that any ex-Service men's organisations would want to dictate the machinery of Government would not reflect their views? Is he aware that ex-Service men will judge this reorganisation from the service which they receive, that if it is better they will be satisfied and if it is worse they will make their protests in the normal way?

Mr. de Freitas

Is the Prime Minister aware that we are entering a phase when civil aviation and civil aircraft may be one of our greatest foreign currency earners, and is there not great danger that this further degrading of civil aviation to the status of a branch line of British Railways may do real harm in the next year or two?

Mr. Paget

Is the Prime Minister aware that the staff of the Ministry of Pensions have developed a personal relationship with the pensioners which is quite unique? Is he aware, for instance, that the staff from their own pockets gave a Christmas present to every single orphan last year? Is he aware that that relationship is something very precious indeed, and will he be most careful to see that it is not broken?

Miss Ward

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a logical conclusion to amalgamate the Ministry of Pensions with the Ministry of National Insurance, considering that since the war we have established a very efficient Ministry of National Insurance which did not exist in pre-war days? Is not that the real reason all these matters should come under one administration?

Mr. Woodburn

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on the health side? If pensioners are to be in the care of the Ministry of Health in Scotland, will that mean that they will be subject to the ordinary charges imposed on health patients whilst no charges are imposed upon them now as pensioners?

The Prime Minister

I do not pretend to be able to deal with every detail. [Interruption.] I must say that I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are very ungrateful to make all this fuss, because I give them good information—[HON. MEMBERS: "No figures."]—beforehand of the general policy which we are pursuing, without the slightest prejudice to further detailed examination, discussion and debate in the House. What was the question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked?

Mr. Woodburn

I am anxious to know whether, when these pensioners go over to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry will have two methods of treatment, one imposing charges on health patients and one not imposing charges on pensioners, or will pensioners be subject to the charges under the National Health Scheme?

The Prime Minister

I will inquire about that. I have a very clear opinion and I have already stated to the House that the general position of the pensioners and their treatment will not on any account be allowed to deteriorate. I am speaking of the general position.

Mr. H. Morrison

As the Prime Minister does not recall the elementary and obvious consideration of how much money will be saved, which the Government must have considered, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present and that it is clearly his duty to know, will the Chancellor be so good as to inform us how much will be saved in respect of each of these proposals? I think that the House has a right to know that.

The Prime Minister

I think it would be very right to tell the House exactly what economies were foreseen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]—but it would be much less good conduct and good behaviour on the part of Ministers to give estimates which were not founded upon sure and carefully examined facts. It is always a pity not to be able to tell everything at one moment to the House, but it is much better to fail in that respect than it is to mislead them or to give them wrong information.

Mr. Attlee

Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that these changes are not based on carefully ascertained facts?

The Prime Minister

Considering the awful mess that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made of our affairs during their many years of almost absolute power, I marvel at their effrontery.

Mr. Attlee

The right hon. Gentleman has often heard, "No case, abuse the other side."

The Prime Minister

With great respect, I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to correct the misquotation—"When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney."

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This irregular debate is going far wider than the statement. I think the House will agree that it has had a good run and we are to have a debate in the not-too-distant future when a White Paper has been issued. I think we should pass to the next business.