HC Deb 29 February 1956 vol 549 cc1328-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The matter that I wish to raise tonight concerns the closing of the local office of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at Hebden Bridge in my constituency. Until yesterday afternoon there were four local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in the Sowerby Division, in Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge and Elland. Today, there are only three, the Hebden Bridge office having been closed yesterday afternoon. Shortly, there will be only two, because the office in Elland is scheduled for closure as soon as alternative accommodation can be found in a neighbouring office for the staff to be transferred.

To close half the local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in one constituency is a serious curtailment of local services. How far this concentration of local offices is going on throughout the country I do not know, but it may be worthy of the attention of the House at a more appropriate time to consider the general effect of what appears to be a policy of concentrating local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, merging small offices to make bigger offices, but removing them from the centre of population which they serve.

In correspondence which I have had with the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman has explained the general background to this process of concentration now apparently going on, and I quote from a letter to me dated 4th February of this year in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister stated: In the early days the plans for siting local offices were made according to the needs of the locality as known at the time. The fact that a town had an employment exchange was taken into account—as also, however, were population density and the organisation which had been provided by the Approved Societies. But some modification of these early plans has proved necessary in the light of experience. For instance, it has been found in the course of time that a large proportion of insured people prefer to claim their benefits by post and requests for benefits to be paid personally are now relatively few. Because of this, and because the scheme is now so well known, it has been possible to concentrate the work Lin the regions in rather fewer local offices, but in doing this we have been at considerable pains not to withdraw facilities which have been enjoyed and made good use of locally. The Hebden Bridge office, which has existed since the beginning of the National Insurance Scheme, is in a town having its own character and a need for its own services. The staff of the local office is, admittedly, small—only seven I believe—and the Minister no doubt believes that it is not economical to maintain such a comparatively small staff in a separate office in a township like Hebden Bridge.

For some months now, the Minister has had under consideration a proposal to close the Hebden Bridge office and transfer what is described as the backroom work to the office in the neighbouring town of Todmorden, which is five miles from Hebden Bridge. I wish to stress that Hebden Bridge is not in any sense a suburb or satellite of Todmorden. Each town has its own traditions and local industries. Todmorden is a municipal borough, and Hebden Bridge is in the Hebden Royd urban district.

I am bound, in fairness, to say that the Minister, in making the proposal to transfer the office from Hebden Bridge to Todmorden, has been at pains to point out that not all the local facilities would be withdrawn, but that there would be a caller office at Hebden Bridge at which all reasonable facilities would be available. Unfortunately, he has not been able to convince representative bodies locally, including the local authorities, that the services available at the caller office would satisfy the reasonable needs and requirements of the local population.

The local people have regarded the caller office as a kind of fobbing off of the local objection to the closing of the main office. Nobody has really believed in it. People who have had experience of other caller offices in public administration have found that sometimes notices are stuck on the door saying, "Back tomorrow," "Call again on Tuesday" or "Closed till next week," or that the official there has said, "I am sorry, but I cannot tell you now. Leave the matter with me and I will write to you,"or" The man who deals with this sort of thing is not here now. He is at the main office." The result is that the Minister has been bombarded with objections and protests from local bodies of all kinds.

Among the objectors have been the Hebden Royd Urban District Council, the Hepton Rural District Council, the local Trades and Labour Council, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, of whose advice the Minister should surely take notice, the local Employment Committee, and even the National Farmers' Union. If the Minister concerned was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a protest from the National Farmers' Union would lead him to quake and pause in the action he was proposing to take, but apparently the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance brushes off the National Farmers' Union, along with the Hebden Royd Urban District Council and other representative bodies. I have also shown to the Minister a petition signed by local citizens of repute and responsibility, including the noble Lord, Viscount Garnock, who is President of the local Conservative Association. In fact, one may say that anybody who is anybody in Hebden Bridge or Heptonstall signed that petition.

A fortnight ago, the Hebden Royd Urban District Council convened a special meeting to which it invited representatives of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance who explained in great detail exactly what this caller office was and what facilities would be there available. The Council asked for some assurance that the office would really do what the Minister said it would. An assurance has been given that the caller office will be open for six hours each weekday except Saturday.

According to the local newspaper, the Hebden Bridge Times and Gazette, in its issue of 24th February, 1956: One of the Ministry of Pensions representatives said that, so far as he knew, there was no facility now available which would not be available at the new caller office, and the same service would be available both to individual members of the public and representatives of business houses as existed at present. It is most important to know whether that is so. The Minister's representative said that so far as he knew it would be so. I ask will it definitely be so. Most important of all, I ask the Minister whether cash payments of benefit will be made at this caller office, because nothing is said about that facility in the notice of closure which has been put in the local newspapers by the Ministry. It is there said: For the convenience of members of the public an Enquiry Office will remain at Ashley House, Hangingroyd Lane, Hebden Bridge, where claims may be handed in, and enquiries made about National Insurance, War Pensions and Welfare Foods. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether she will be kind enough definitely to say that cash benefits can be paid at the caller office.

I also ask whether she will give the assurance for which the local authority asked and which has not yet been given, that there will be no curtailment of the hours of business—six hours a day for all weekdays except Saturdays—no curtailment of the number of days in the week upon which the office will be open or of the service to be given at the caller office, without first consulting the local authority and other responsible bodies concerned. That is most important, because it is only upon that basis that the local authorities of Hebden Royd Urban District Council and the Hepton Rural District Council have expressed themselves as satisfied to give the caller office a trial.

Finally, will the Minister also remember that this great new scheme of State insurance and welfare payments was accepted by the people on the firmest assurances given at the time that the local service of the earlier approved societies would be substantially continued by the new Ministry? I would also remind the Parliamentary Secretary that people who go to the local offices of the Ministry are usually in trouble of some kind, sickness in the house, bereavement, accident at work, or some adversity which is provided for in the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Scheme.

I hope that the Minister can say that there will be no whittling down of the local services so essential to the comfort of those in trouble, and that a responsible officer of the Ministry will be available at the caller office to extend the kindness and sympathy which those in difficulty need, and which they have had so bountifully from the local office. I trust that the Minister will be able to give this assurance to the local inhabitants of Hebden Bridge and district. They fully appreciate the splendid service given by the local office.

It may seem strange that, for once in a way, the public want a local office of a Government Department there to render services. Among all the campaigns for economy in Government administration, here in the harmony and mutual understanding which has grown up between the local office of the Ministry and the people of the area is a clear example of the value of a local office. I hope that the Minister can say that there will be no curtailment of the services on account of this administrative change.

10.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt)

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) opened with some comments on the general policy regarding offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Perhaps I might be allowed to reply first on the general issue and then on the local one. The policy of the Department in 1948 and subsequently has been to give the best service to the public. The aim has been to decentralise local offices wherever possible. The work which they do is to receive claims, pay benefits and collect contributions.

I think that the hon. Member will know that the factors taken into account in establishing local offices from 1948 onwards have been first, the needs of the locality. The question whether there was an employment exchange in the town was taken into consideration, though it did not necessarily follow that every town that had an employment exchange also had a local office of the Ministry. The population to be served was taken into account, as well as the organisation already provided by the approved societies to which the hon. Member has referred, and, particularly the availability of premises.

Hebden Bridge was perhaps fortunate in having a local office of the Ministry, because a number of towns of comparable size did not have an office. Since they once had a local office, it is the intention still to continue a local service at Hebden Bridge.

As a result of this general policy, there were at one time about a thousand local offices in the country, and I would say to the hon. Gentleman that we are still maintaining that policy of giving the best local service. Experience has shown that it is desirable and possible at times to effect some economies. We have now been doing this work for about seven years, and some changes have become possible. But there is no broad change in policy.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the closing of two offices in his constituency. It is true that we have closed as from yesterday the one at Hebden Bridge, and we propose to close the one at Elland when suitable accommodation can be found. But in both cases we shall provide a caller office service. That is the general policy throughout the country. Where the unit is small and could be replaced with the same efficiency by a caller office in the area that has been done. In other areas, perhaps in new towns or developing industrial areas, we are opening new local offices. I hope that that will serve to emphasise that there has been no broad change in general policy.

As a result of our experience, we have found that most insured people prefer to claim their benefit by post. It is much easier for them. We find that, as they gain experience of the scheme, and as it becomes known, it is easy for people to obtain cash at the nearest post office, which is probably nearer to them than the local office of the Ministry. For our own part, in times of sickness, the Department manages much better where there is a large staff available. Staff may be switched to deal with the requirement of the moment, which is one of the advantages of having a rather larger office.

The requests for payment in cash throughout the country are now no more than two in every 1,000. Because of this, and because the scheme is better known, it is possible to operate through 900 local offices. I hope that that emphasises the point that no great change has been made. Where offices have been closed, the public are still served by caller offices, and there are now 218 of those, which are open full-time or part-time. This has been found to be successful. We take considerable trouble not to withdraw facilities enjoyed and made good use of locally.

I now come to the local issue of Hebden Bridge. As a result of a recent review of small offices which might perhaps be closed in the interests of efficiency and economy—in that order— the decision was 'taken to close the local office at Hebden Bridge. As the hon. Member said, it has a staff of seven, and has had about 200 callers a week—which is not a very heavy load. Todmorden is about five miles away, and has the accommodation to provide for the staff both at Todmorden and those who have been transferred from Hebden Bridge. Therefore, it is intended to concentrate what I would call the back-room boys for the Hebden Bridge area at Todmorden, but that does not mean that the people of the Hebden Bridge area will need to go to Todmorden.

The records will certainly be at Todmorden, but there will be a full-time caller office at Hebden Bridge. It will be at the same address; it will be open for the same number of hours, and it will be staffed by a competent officer, who will be able to give assistance to the local people about the matters which they want advice on at the office. There should be no need for them to journey to Todmorden, because if information is needed about their papers, which are filed at Todmorden, the officer on duty at Hebden Bridge can telephone through. In any event, quite often the call is only to leave a sick note, or make an inquiry about a retirement pension. I think, therefore, that it will be found that a satisfactory service is provided.

It means that the counter service, which is what the public wants most, and which deals with most public queries, will be as readily available as in the past, despite the fact that we have moved a number of back-room boys. I can state categorically that arrangements are being made for benefits to be paid iu cash where desired, though again I would advise the hon. Gentleman that in fact only about four per week are being paid in cash at Hebden Bridge at the moment. As I said earlier, it has been found that people usually prefer to obtain their benefits through the post. In the same way, they have no need to call to deposit their sick notes, because they are on each occasion issued with a prepaid label, which enables them to post them back.

If pensioners need advice, or cannot call at the caller office, they can be visited by our officers, who will assist them. Similarly, farmers who might have problems both of their own insurance and that of their employees—particularly, I understand, in that area, temporary employees—can also be visited by an officer if it is not convenient to them to call at the local caller office.

The change has been made known, both by advertising in the local Press and by notices in the existing local office, and though it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that representations have been received from a number of local interests, we have had none at all from members of the public. I should like the hon. Member to know—since he made the point—that although we had a protest from the urban district council, it has now heard a representative of the Ministry, who addressed a meeting specially convened for the purpose attended by representatives of other protesting organisations, has withdrawn its objection. So it seems that they are satisfied with the assurance which has been given locally.

I can well understand the local feeling which has arisen on this point. Hebden Bridge is quite obviously a community—a very independent community judging from all I have read of the hon. Gentleman's letters. I realise, too, that communications are perhaps difficult. I am sorry to say that I do not know Hebden Bridge or this part of the world, but I have studied it on the map, and I do realise that it is probably not easy to visit neighbouring small towns. I also appreciate the point about the kind of weather they have in that district—especially, I suspect, during the last few weeks.

All these considerations make it easy to understand the local feeling, but our experience shows that although we get this sort of complaint before closing a local office, we never get it after. The alternative service is accepted as satisfactory. There is an increase in efficiency and economy when the filing work is transferred from smaller offices, and there are savings in overheads, something which is not unimportant in these days when all reasonable economies must be considered. This, I would emphasise, is an administrative economy, and the service to the public will be unchanged. There is no question of hardship to the public, who can still go to the caller office and receive the same service.

I would conclude by telling the hon. Gentleman this. It has been made clear locally that the caller office will be open for the same hours. There will be the same service, including cash benefits—people will be able to draw their benefits in cash. Since the hon. Member for Sowerby has gone to considerable trouble to let us know the local feeling on this subject—indeed he has raised it on the Adjournment tonight—his constituents may be glad to have the assurance, which I give to him now to pass on to them, that the service will continue as before. We think that it will be just as satisfactory as the local services so far enjoyed, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no change in the present arrangements without consulting local interests.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

Perhaps I may be allowed to say how delighted we are to have this kind of speech from the Government side tonight. How different are the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary from the fears expressed by the Conservative Party when the Measure was going through the House. They then expressed the fear that, in fact, local circumstances would not be taken into account and that this service would not be as good as that provided by the friendly societies. I am delighted to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary about the efficiency that exists.

In one respect I think there will be some difficulty, and that is in regard to payment by cash. The hon. Lady did say that if the applicant wanted cash that would be arranged, but I think that that will provide some difficulties. She has said that such applications amount to only two in every thousand, but, quite frankly, my own view is that this provision is not advertised by the local offices—so that fewer and fewer people understand that there can be payment in cash—because, for administrative reasons, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it is much easier to pay by postal draft.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.