HL Deb 09 July 1952 vol 177 cc984-97

6.12 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD WISE

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I heard the maiden speech of my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McEntee. I have known him for many years, I have knowledge of the work that he has done in municipal and Parliamentary life, and I was very pleased indeed to be present when his speech was delivered.

The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has spoken with great sincerity and a desire particularly to avoid disaster in the nursing and other social services, and I think that we on this side of the House, and apparently also my noble friend Lord Sempill from the Cross-Benches, support the appeal which he has made in this particular respect. There is one point upon which I wish to follow the noble Lord, and in doing so I think I should read a letter which has been received by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson who, had he been present, would, I believe, have read its contents. It is a letter which has been received from the Royal College of Nursing. Apparently the Royal College are very much perturbed by the fact that this particular cut is about to be made in this service. In the first letter to the noble Lord the Council of the Royal College suggest that it will make it impossible for the Institute to put into operation its plan for the training of domestic workers for hospitals. Previous speakers have spoken of the great difficulty experienced by hospitals and similar institutions in finding trained domestic workers. In another letter there is a further paragraph, which I think should read, since it bears upon the particular matter under discussion. The paragraph says: The point, I think, the College would like to make is that anything that will make for a more stable domestic staff in hospital is to be encouraged. Quite apart from the actual cuts in the establishment of ward maids, many gaps caused by their restless comings and goings often have to be made good by the nurses; but the point which has been put to us most forcibly is that the ward sister wastes so much time in 'breaking in' the newcomers—explaining and demonstrating to each untrained recruit how to scrub the ward kitchen table and carry out her round of other ward chores with reasonable efficiency. It has, of course, been argued that a hospital domestic supervisor could undertake the bulk of this work, but the College feels that even so a steady supply of properly trained hospital domestics would be an immense help to the ward sister and release her for her real duties—nursing the sick, teaching the student nurse and administering her ward generally. I think that is an important letter, because it bears out very forcibly the points which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, was pleased to make in regard to hospital staffs.

My Lords, I want to approach this matter from the county point of view—not so much in regard to the Institute, which has been well covered by previous speakers, but in regard to the operation of home-helps in the small country towns and in the counties. It has been suggested that there is to be a 66 per cent. cut, totalling in all £120,000, and that out of nine centres only one is to be retained. It appears to me, if eight centres are to go, that the cost of running a centre is roughly about £15,000 a year, and it leaves the Government prepared to spend £60,000, which is the 33⅓ per cent. which is to be retained. If the retained centre is to cost annually something approaching £20,000, as it may easily do, that means that the Government are prepared to spend only about £40,000 a year, if I may use the phrase, on subsidising home-helps in the countries. If my arithmetic is approximately correct, that means to say, that the Government contribution in each county (and there are about forty counties in England, Scotland and Wales), is merely the miserable sum of £1,000 per annum per county. I cannot conceive that a social service, such as this is proving to be, having an allow- ance or contribution of only £1,000 from the Government, will be at all adequate; therefore, with my noble friend, I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter, and that this very small cut of £120,000 will be reinstated.

If we take the position in the small counties and country towns, the home-help service is becoming more efficient. In my own county, it was found in the first few years that expenditure was a little high, that the money was not being economically and efficiently spent. I understand that matters have been righted in that respect, and also that in one particular town in which I am interested, not only do the seventeen home-helps available carry out the most wonderful work in regard to maternity cases but that when they have time, when they are not dealing with maternity cases, they are able to go to the aid of other sick folk and of old people. That service, I understand, is running remarkably well; it is doing its job, and carrying out what it was set up to do. I should greatly regret it if the Government saw fit in any respect to cut down the service in the counties. I hope that I may be wrong in my surmise that that may happen. If only £60,000 a year is to be spent not only on the Institute "token centre"—that I think, was the expression used—but also in giving assistance in the counties, I think that is altogether wrong.

Very often it is possible for people to talk upon these matters from personal experience. I heard Lord McEntee speak of his own experience in relation to domestic matters, and I can tell your Lordships something from my own knowledge of a particular case. It is a case which is very near to me, if I may say so—the case of an aged and sick person. The visits of the home-help to that, person two or three times a week, and the assistance given to the housekeeper, not only in looking after the aged person but also in tidying up and doing certain cleaning, was of inestimable benefit to the poor old soul concerned. I plead with the Government, therefore, not to let ideas of economy run away with them and override common sense and good service. This is a vital service. It is a part of our great build-up of the social services. It has a background of something which is good. The whole conception is good. I appeal to the Government to let it go on and not to let it be—as my noble friend Lord Crook put it—damped down, as it were, to rise again from the ashes. Let it progress as it can progress. The cases of Scotland and Wales have been pleaded. I do not know whether Ireland comes into this, but let us appeal from an English point of view, if you like. Let us impress on the Government that we want this service in England and Scotland, and in Wales also. Having said that, I leave it to the Government to do something which is just and really worthwhile.

6.23 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, I intervene for literally one moment only lest any misunderstanding should arise by reason of the fact that no one has spoken from this Front Bench. Noble Lords who have addressed the House from our side are those who have devoted special study to this subject. I know that everyone will wish to echo the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord McEntee, on his maiden speech. In the view of all of us it was outstandingly successful. I wish only to emphasise that the Opposition are solidly and collectively behind Lord Crook in this Motion, and to assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that we are waiting eagerly and anxiously for his reply.

6.24 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, before I say anything else I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McEntee, on a most interesting and, I thought, admirable contribution to the debate. I can hardly call it a maiden speech for, as the noble Lord himself said, you cannot begin being a maiden at the age of eighty-two. But, at any rate, it was his first speech in this House, and I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord very often again. He spoke, I thought, with great sincerity about a subject in which he clearly takes keen interest and of which he has considerable knowledge—that is something which we all respect.

The noble Lord mentioned in his speech the words "pride and poverty." That led me to think of the words: "pride and prejudice," and that, in turn, led me to feel that the noble Lord who moved the Motion seemed to think that perhaps the Government had some kind of prejudice against the National Institute of Houseworkers. I just want to clear away any idea of that kind. The noble Lord paid a warm tribute to the National Institute, and I should like to take the opportunity of endorsing what he has said. Despite the fact that the Institute has been in existence for only a comparatively short time there is no doubt that it has done very valuable work towards raising the status of domestic employment and toward securing recognition of domestic work as an important and skilled occupation. For that reason, we regret all the more that it should have been necessary to cut the Treasury's grant to the Institute from £200,000 per annum to £60,000 per annum. It would be idle to deny that that is a drastic cut, though I venture to hope that its effect upon the Institute will not be quite as cataclysmic as Lord Crook has suggested.

As the noble Lord knows, the Institute, when it was founded, was charged with four main functions. It was empowered to secure training for domestic employment to standards which it would lay down; to award diplomas of efficiency to domestic workers after examination, and to provide a daily houseworkers' service in a few selected areas which would employ workers holding the Institute's diploma, and hire their services to householders at a fixed hourly charge. Finally, it was to serve in general as a centre of research into questions of domestic employment, with the object of attracting more workers into this occupation. I think that is a fair summary of the objects of the Institute; and, of course, of all the activities of the Institute the maintenance of nine training centres is by far the most expensive item. Therefore, if any cut had to be made it was inevitable that the impact of it would fall upon this particular activity.

As the noble Lord is well aware, the reduced grant will mean that only one of the Institute's training centres can be maintained for experimental work and demonstration purposes. At the present moment that is the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who I am afraid has had to leave us, made a special plea for Scotland and Wales. At the moment we cannot see our way to allow more than one centre for the Institute, though, of course, the Institute has been informed that more centres can be carried on if money can be obtained from outside sources—which is not entirely impossible. I will not attempt to deny that this represents a very severe curtailment of this particular activity. But I think one can exaggerate it. It does not mean that all training by the Institute is to be abandoned. The Harrow centre will remain, and that, I hope, will serve as a base from which a fresh expansion can take place when easier times return and it is possible to review the Institute's grant once again. In the meantime it will continue to provide not only training facilities—on a very limited scale I admit—but, what is perhaps more important, a standard upon which local education authorities and other organisations who wish to provide for domestic training can model their courses.

LORD MCENTEE

May I put a question to the noble Lord upon that? He speak sof local education authorities providing the service that is now provided by the Institute. Will that service he grant-aided if the local education authorities do provide it?

LORD LLOYD

I do not think, if I may say so, that they will provide a service which is already provided by the Institute. It always was the intention that ultimately this service should be provided by the local education authorities. Therefore, it will not be grant-aided; the cost will come out of the authorities' own revenues, but local educational authorities are at liberty to provide these services if they wish.

I should like now to turn to the whole question of home help.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord leaving this question of training? Has he said his say on that? Before departing from it, would he tell us what happens to the training staffs engaged in this work? If these centres are closed down, the staffs are dispersed. How can they resume operations when the happier moment arrives?

LORD LLOYD

Obviously, the staffs will be dispersed, but I think it will be possible to bring them together again. I am not pretending that this is not a cut, and cuts cannot be made without sacrifices. May I return to that point, and continue with my speech? I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, but if I do not, knowing him. I am sure he will return to the charge. In regard to home-helps, I think again there has been an exaggeration. This reduction in the grant does not necessarily mean curtailment of effective assistance to the Home Help Service. Although a certain number of trainees in these centres go to the Home Help Service, the majority do not, because they are a different type of person from that required by the Home Help Service. The Home Help Service requires people of rather greater age, whereas the trainees in the centres are normally young girls of seventeen who have to go to full-time jobs to earn their living and who are quite unsuitable as home-helps.

As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, probably knows, the Institute has for some time been co-operating with local authorities in this field, but until recently its assistance was confined to examining home-helps employed by the local authorities, including the London County Council, and awarding diplomas to successful candidates. That is all it did. The local authorities concerned normally defrayed the Institute's expenses for conducting examinations. The Home Help Service was running satisfactorily before the Institute came into the picture at all. I am not saying it has not helped, but to say that this is the only Home Help Service is pitching the case a little strong.

I turn now to the provision of training courses for home-helps by the Institute. That is a comparatively recent development. These short courses were provided last year at the request of the late Government as an experiment in six areas, in order to discover whether such training could profitably be undertaken on a wider scale. This small experiment was successful, and it may be that other health authorities will decide to cooperate in training courses of kind. If so, the local authorities would be expected to contribute to the Institute's costs. In any case, the expense of this work is not substantial and the reduction in the Institute's annual grant, in the opinion of the Government, should not affect developments in this field, which depend primarily, I should like to emphasise, on the good will and financial resources of local authorities. I hope I have offered some consolation to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, on this point.

I turn to another criticism that was made, for which I think there is no foundation—namely, the effect of the cut on the hospital services. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, and the noble Lord, Lord McEntee, echoed, that this was going to have a disastrous effect on the training of domestic workers for hospitals. As the noble Lord is no doubt aware, during the past two years the Institute, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and representatives of the hospitals and the nursing profession, has been engaged in drawing up a training scheme for women employed in hospitals and other institutions. The Ministry of Health (this is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Health and not for the Ministry of Labour) had hoped to introduce the scheme experimentally in two or three hospitals in 1952. Had this been proceeded with, the Institute's responsibility would have been a very limited one. It would have consisted primarily in examining the students for diplomas, and not for the actual tuition or training, which was going to be carried out by the Ministry of Health. In view of the need for economy, the Ministry have decided that for the time being they are going to abandon this scheme. I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has been mis-informed on this point. The cut has nothing whatever to do with the abandonment of this scheme. That is a Ministry of Health matter and has nothing to do with the Institute, which receives its funds from the Ministry of Labour.

I come to the general work of the Institute. The training of domestic workers is not the Institute's only activity, although it is certainly its most costly one. It has other functions which it is hoped will not be affected unduly by the cut. It runs a daily houseworker service in twelve areas throughout the country, employing about 450 workers and supplying over 1,600 households with regular part-time domestic help. The Government have always taken the view that this service should be self-supporting. A number of services did not pay in the past and they have been wound up, but the twelve now operating are on a self-supporting basis, and the Ministry hope that the Institute will continue to run them on this basis. Of course, the Institute will also be able to continue to award its diplomas to workers who satisfy the necessary standard of efficiency, to co-operate with local education authorities and other organisations to provide courses up to the Institute standard, and to carry on its publicity work, designed to attract more workers into this occupation. Despite the limitation in its resources and the amount of training it will be able to carry out, the Institute should be able, I still think, to pursue its primary object of raising the status of domestic employment.

I have tried to explain what I believe to be the probable effects of this cut on the Institute's work and to do my best to allay some of the noble Lord's anxiety. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour to what the noble Lord has said, and to what other noble Lords have said this afternoon. I know that the noble Lord feels sincerely about this question and I will certainly represent what he has said to the Minister. I must say frankly that I am not in a position to give him any undertaking that the Government will be prepared to reconsider their decision. It is never a pleasant task to make cuts, either in your personal expenditure or in the wider field of national expenditure. But I think we have to face up to the fact that, both as private individuals and as a nation, we have to live within our means. We have had many economic debates in your Lordships' House, in which the great gravity of the economic position has been stressed over and over again. In that position, we believe that considerable economy in Government expenditure is absolutely essential. Clearly something has to be cut, and there are always excellent reasons put forward by those concerned with a particular cut why their ewe lamb should be spared and somebody else's ewe lamb shorn.

It is always said that the cut is just a little one. If I may say so, we had that argument this afternoon both from the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Lord, Lord McEntee. It was said that it was a pity to spoil this particular body for not even one farthing's worth of tar. We had the same argument in the case of the National Health Services Bill, when it was a matter of £20,000,000. That argument has been advanced by noble Lords to-day when the cut is only £140,000. I am prepared to concede that in relation to the national expenditure a cut of £20,000,000 is a small thing; and equally I am prepared to concede to the noble Lord that, compared with £20,000,000, a cut of £140,000 is a small thing. But, as has been repeated often before, these small economies do add up to big economies; and if we had accepted these arguments we should not have cut by the £20,000,000 or by the £140,000. So, in this difficult and distasteful business of cutting and economising, all one can try and do is to hold the balance as evenly as possible, and to ensure that where cuts have to be made, although they are very painful to the victim, they shall not be fatal.

The noble Lord, Lord Crook, accused us of making this cut in order to murder the Institute. I say most sincerely that that is not our intention. Perhaps it would have been easier to murder the Institute, but we did not wish to do so. We wish, if possible, to preserve the Institute. The noble Lord said that one day it would rise again. That is our intention. We have to make this cut, but we want to preserve the Institute and see it rise again. I hope that, despite this setback, the Institute will rise again; that it will continue even now to do useful work and that in the future, when times are easier, as one day we hope they may be, we shall be able to give it more money for fresh expansion..

6.43 p.m.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I am sure that if any mover of a Motion had to hear the terms of that Motion completely rejected he could not ask for anyone to do it with greater grace than the noble Lord who has just sat down. From our knowledge of the noble Lord we have always expected that from him. Every time that I looked across at his smiling face this afternoon I have inevitably had a vision of flames. The noble Lord need not be worried that I thought he would eventually go anywhere normally associated with flames. But one could not help associating with this debate and the noble Lord the story of Casabianca. Looking at all those vast empty Benches this afternoon, there was the noble Lord, and thence had all others fled. Indeed, when we saw those empty Benches we had a little chuckle, because we sent out messengers to look in those places where noble Lords take tea, and we looked around and found that, for the first time in the history of this present Parliament, we on this side were in a position to defeat the Government this afternoon on this Motion, had we so decided. It is only due to the charm and the loneliness of Casabianca that we are not taking that step, allowing the grim empty Benches opposite to show the lack of interest taken by members of the Government in this matter.

The other reason why I thought of flames was that the noble Lord said this matter was not quite so cataclysmic as I had suggested. Again, may I explain why I associate that with flames? Whilst the noble Lord suggested that, he went on to say that one centre would be retained; and that that centre would be experimental, and would indulge in demonstration.

LORD LLOYD

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord unnecessarily, and I am sure he did not intend to misquote me. I did not use the word "experimental." I do not think it can be experimental, because it has been in existence for some time and is established. I said that it would primarily be for demonstration and training purposes.

LORD CROOK

I accept the noble Lord's withdrawal of the word "experimental." Obviously my pen, which is of the ball-point type, went wrongly across the paper when it wrote the word down as the noble Lord said it. However, the noble Lord does not mean "experimental," but "demonstrable." I do not think it matters, because my flames metaphor is much more related to the fact that we were told by the Minister in another place that this would go down, to "rise again"—which makes one think of a phœnix rising from the ashes, which is not unrelated to murder. But again I acquit the noble Lord of desiring to murder this insignificant institution. Perhaps I ought to say that it is not proposed to murder it, but to put it permanently under an anæsthetic—I will give way to the noble Lord if he wishes.

LORD LLOYD

I feel that I must interrupt again, if the noble Lord will forgive me. Either his ball-point pen has gone wrong again, or there is something wrong with me. l thought I made it clear that we do not wish permanently to anæsthetise the Institute. This is a difficult time, and we have had to make these economies. We do not hope that the Institute will be anæsthetised, but that it will rise again.

LORD CROOK

I will leave the point—I am satisfied with the intervention that my noble friend Lord Pakenham made.

The noble Lord admitted that the staffs will, in fact, be dismissed from the eight centres. It seems to me that if the economy is to be made, inevitably the eight centres will be closed and the buildings will disappear. So that, whatever metaphors may be used, it seems that there will not be much left with which to get the body back into the shape which it has now. It has taken five and a half years to get the Institute thus far after its commencement, and there were all those years of history in the background. The noble Lord tells us that we can have more centres if more money can be obtained. That is an admission by the Government that, now that the agitation of members of both Houses, w lich started in 1918 and went on until 1946, has at last produced a scheme which after five years has begun to live, if we can now find another Nuffield, or some other wizard of finance, it will be possible to get on with it. When he uses phrases like "when easier times return," I am not going to fall for the inevitably risky thing of asking him to tell me when he forecasts that that will be. But I am going to suggest to him that this is exactly the story that was told us to justify doing nothing about this matter from 1918 onwards. From 1918 to 1923 there was a clear belief that things would be all right. By 1923 it was clear that they were not going to be all right, and therefore it was necessary to economise. Then we ran into the 1931 May economy cuts. We ran on from crisis to crisis, and were then involved in rearmament and further expenditure. Then came the war, after which we had to try and grapple with the problem. We started the thing after the war and now it is to crash for the sake of £140,000 until easier times return. I leave it there.

Perhaps I may take up one other of the noble Lord's metaphors. He picked up the word "pride" used by one noble Lord, and talked about "pride and prejudice." I would only say that I was asking the Government to show "sense and sensibility." I should not like it to be thought that I wanted in any way to over-paint the picture about the training of hospital staffs. What is at the back of my mind—and I am sure the noble Lord appreciates this—is the very thing which the Minister of Labour himself said about this issue. The important thing is that, as is provided in the original Memorandum of Association of this organisation, they are charged to raise the status of this employment. What they have been doing over a period of time is exactly that. For the purpose of my argument, I do not care "tuppence" about training schemes inside hospitals. I am concerned only that the vital work in generality among the public of this country should go on to raise the status of this employment. Only then will you get women to understand that it is not so bad to go into a hospital and do this kind of work. The noble Lord will know that I spent many years in connection with employment exchanges, and during the great period of depression one of the astonishing things you could hear was women absolutely crying out for work, who wanted it at all costs, going to employment exchanges and registering. They were asked: "Will you take anything?" The answer was, "Yes, but not domestic." That was the reply of women crying out for work. They still felt that there was something degrading in that, and that the conditions were bad.

This Institute made it understood, for the first time in this country, that if a woman goes out for employment and does exactly all those marvellous duties which the wife and mother performs throughout her life she is not demeaning herself. It is not a low status. The plain truth is that she is contributing one of the most valuable things that can be contributed in this country. I should not like the noble Lord to go away believing that I wanted to exaggerate at all in any of the things I have said. It would be wrong if I did not say one thing, and that is to say how sensible I am of the compliment paid by my noble friend Lord McEntee in venturing at eighty-two to be a maiden again this afternoon on a debate which I initiated. We are all glad to have him, and we all hope that when he reaches his hundred-and-first year he will still be here to talk to us in his own individual fashion.

I have already indicated that we could have taken steps, however punitive, against Her Majesty's Government, but in the goodness and kindness of our hearts we do not propose to do that, and in a moment, therefore, I shall ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for what he said, and particularly for his promise to take into account what has been said in this House; his assurance that he will consult with Ministers and, in particular, that he will press, if we cannot have the whole restored, at least that we can have one centre in Scotland and ore in Wales. If we cm get that we shall think that this debate has not been in vain. Having said that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.