PROVISION FOR OLD AGE (COMMITTEE)

HC Deb 02 July 1953 vol 517 cc601-5

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Government's attitude to the problems which will be presented by the prospective increase in the number of old people.

As the House knows, the number of men and women over the present minimum pension ages of 65 and 60 is expected to rise from nearly 7 million in 1952 to nearly 10 million in 1977, a rise of more than 40 per cent. During the same period the number of the population between 15 and these pension ages is expected to decline. Against this background the Government have already announced their policy of encouraging an extension of the span of working life, and the House will recall that last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour appointed a National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Workers to advise and assist him in promoting the employment of older men and women. Their first Report is expected shortly.

The Government recognise that the long-term implications of the increase in the numbers of old people are of the highest social and economic importance and, at the same time, of great complexity. They have, therefore, decided to set up an independent committee to advise them with the following terms of reference: To review the economic and financial problems involved in providing for old age, having regard to the prospective increase in the number of the aged, and to make recommendations. I am glad to say that Sir Thomas W. Phillips, for many years Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and subsequently to the Ministry of National Insurance, has agreed to serve as chairman of this committee. The names of the members will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Gaitskell

While welcoming the Government's intention, which is following the example set by their predecessors, may I ask the Chancellor to clarify the relationship between the Ministry of Labour Committee and the new committee which it is proposed to appoint? Will the new committee be concerned at all with industrial problems, or is that to be left entirely to the Ministry of Labour's Committee? Were the Trades Union Congress consulted before the appointment of the committee?

Mr. Butler

The answer to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about the Trades Union Congress is, "Yes, Sir." The Trades Union Congress have agreed to be represented on the committee, which is an exceedingly good thing. The answer to that part of his question about the Minister of Labour's Committee is that it deals with the employment of older people and the new committee is to deal with general, rather long-term economic and financial questions. The Minister of Labour's Committee will report very soon, and it will then be seen that there is no overlapping between the two.

Mr. Gaitskell

Do I take it that the new committee will be able to cover the whole complex of economic and financial questions in so far as the first Report of the other Committee has not covered them?

Mr. Butler

Yes, Sir. We do not wish to limit the scope of the committee, although it is more likely that the Guillebaud Committee will be covering health questions.

Mr. J. Paton

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the most complete assurance that the new committee is not intended to repeat the history of the infamous May Committee?

Mr. Butler

It has nothing to do with the May Committee to begin with. As I said in my original reply, it will be concerned with matters of the highest social and economic importance, the problems of the old, and as this is a long-term problem which affects not only hon. Members but also the younger generation, I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the inquiry will be conducted in such a way as to serve the interests of the old.

Mr. Mellish

While the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed, does it not throw light on the fact that a very important medical aspect is involved, that the older the population gets the more chronic sick we get? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very urgent needs of the chronic sick today and arrange that the Minister of Health shall get more money on his Vote than he has done in the past so that he will be better able to deal with the chronic sick?

Mr. Butler

We can rely on my right hon. Friend to make sure that he gets a good deal of money.

Mr. Maude

Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to have a medical expert on the committee? Also, is it intended that the committee, whose composition will be welcomed by the whole House, I am sure, should take evidence and sit on the scale and at the length of a Royal Commission, or whether something shorter and smaller is envisaged?

Mr. Butler

It is safe to say that we hope it will be shorter than a Royal Commission. I think it very likely that at least one member of the committee will have medical knowledge, but quite apart from that, there is a separate committee on medical matters under Mr. Guillebaud. However, I will pay attention to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Donnelly

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton), can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under its terms of reference, it is possible for the committee to recommend any changes in the National Insurance system and payments?

Mr. Butler

There is, of course, the quinquennial review of the National Insurance Scheme which is being conducted as a separate exercise, but the committee will have to have regard to that exercise and, of course, there is no better expert on this subject than the chairman of the new committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths

In view of the reply of the Chancellor to the last supplementary question, to the effect that at least some aspects of the National Insurance Scheme may be considered by the committee, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the National Insurance Act a separate Advisory Committee was appointed? Is it intended that the new committee shall take away from the Advisory Committee some very important aspects which it would be that committee's duty to survey at the quinquennial review next year?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. The quinquennial review will be a separate exercise and there is no intention of taking away any powers from the Advisory Committee. The new committee has a very important task—it is essentially one of looking ahead to future problems—and I feel certain that it will keep in touch with other advisory committees and persons with knowledge of this subject.

Sir G. Lloyd

Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the suggestion from the other side of the House that it would be infamous to make reasonable economies and reasonable suggestions so that we got better value for the large sums of money which we spend?

Mr. Butler

I regard as infamous anything which wastes public money.

Mr. Keenan

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something more about the composition of the committee which he is setting up? Will the committee take into consideration the factors governing retirement ages in different industries? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to appoint to the committee persons competent to say at what age persons should retire in heavy industry, in particular?

Mr. Butler

We are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the complexities of the industrial field. That matter will be borne in mind by the members of the committee.

Mr. Nicholson

Will the committee have any representatives of the Treasury or the Central Economic Planning Staff?

Mr. Butler

I think that we at the Treasury and those who are experts in economics have quite enough influence already.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the effect of the statement which he has made, and of the answers which he has given to supplementary questions, is to give a picture of a large number of different committees each dealing with a separate aspect of what is really a single question? Would it not be better to have a committee with terms of reference wide enough to include all these separate matters and to make one comprehensive report?

Mr. Butler

The hon. Gentleman's point is really covered by the fact that the terms of reference are very wide. They cover the economic and financial problems involved. What would be wrong would be, for example, to stop the quinquennial review of the National Insurance Fund or any separate exercises. I do not think that there will be overlapping If there is, I will make a further report to the House.