§ 3.7 p.m.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government why it has been decided not to appoint a successor to Mr. Roderic Bowen QC as resident Social Security Commissioner in Cardiff.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, following extensive consultations, it has now been decided on grounds of efficiency that, while hearings will continue to take place in Cardiff and commissioners will sit there regularly for that purpose, the Cardiff office of the Social Security Commissioners should be closed for administrative purposes.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his unfailing courtesy, but may I invite him to think again? Has not an office of the Social Security Commissioners been efficiently and economically maintained in Cardiff for over 40 years both for oral hearings and for the purposes of adminis-tration, and is not the volume of work in that office as great as ever? Will not any suggested savings be minimal? Finally, is the noble and learned Lord aware 121 that his decision will be hurtful to Welsh feelings at the very time when the Principality feels itself left out in the cold both economically and in the matter of public administration?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I have no doubt that the office was very efficiently and economically administered. Unfortunately, it was underused by the Welsh people. They called there hardly at all. They made their applications by post. So the case on that ground is not as strong as the noble and learned Lord would lead one to think. As to feelings, I am sure that the Welsh people would appreciate efficiency as much as I do.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that, as between Jerusalem and Jericho, the distance between London and Cardiff in either direction is equivalent, and that therefore there can be no objection to basing in Cardiff a Welsh-speaking commissioner who can also deal, as the present office deals, with a number of cases across the Border? The workload can be perfectly well adjusted in that way. Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that it is of little consequence to have a Welsh-speaking commissioner in London as proposed? That does not matter to the metropolis but it does matter to the capital city of Wales that it should be denuded of an office that it has enjoyed, that can perfectly well perform and that can, I repeat, deal with cases across the Border because the Welsh-speaking commissioner will undoubtedly be bilingual.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, oral hearings will continue as before. I am not sure that it would not be hurtful to English feelings to make people go to Wales for them.
§ Lord HoosonMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord not reconsider the matter and not deal with it perhaps quite so flippantly as he has done? Is he aware that this is a matter, I believe, that is deeply hurtful to the people of Wales, who regard it as undermining the administrative entity of Wales for administrative purposes? As the work in this office is as great as it ever was, what are the grounds for removing it? Can the noble and learned Lord say with whom he had consultations?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, yes I can say with whom I had consultations. However, to be accurate, I would have to write them down and put them in the Library. The rest of the question was, I believe, a repetition of the previous point. The office accommo-dation will be saved. Apart from its use for hearings, which will take place in other Welsh accommodation owned by my office, the office accommodation was valuable only when people called, and they seldom did. As regards the Welsh people, I know that a number of very eminent persons have written to me about it, but I have never seen any wide outburst of feeling, and I do not believe that it exists.
§ Lord BroxbourneMy Lords, would my noble and learned friend be good enough to make clear, in so far as it is not to be implied from his previous answers, that this change of policy and practice implies no 122 adverse judgment on the conduct in office of Mr. Roderic Bowen, whom all of us who had the privilege and pleasure of knowing held in the highest regard and affection?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, Mr. Roderic Bowen, who retired, I believe, some time around the end of March, ended his career with universal approval from everyone who knew him both inside and outside the profession.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, if the case load is too small, could it not properly be increased by allowing claimants from the border counties of Gloucester, Hereford and so on to come to Cardiff to have their cases dealt with, bearing in mind that most of the people there are half Welsh anyway? Further-more, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the cost of the Cardiff office is relatively small with only one clerk and, I understand, a long lease that is not an expensive one?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I thought that I had made clear that the oral hearings will take place as before. Therefore, the oral hearings of claims are not in question in this matter. What is in question is the use of accommodation when most of the applications are made by post, with only the occasional personal visit. We are not talking about the oral hearings, which will go on.
§ Lord Edmund-DaviesMy Lords, is it too late to ask that there should be some further thinking—the sort of thinking that went on before the institution in 1948 of a system whereby we have had a Welsh-speaking resident Social Security Commissioner in Cardiff? That is the sort of thinking that appeals deeply, I believe, not only to Welshmen and Welsh-speaking Welshmen but also to residents in Wales for whom this arouses a most important and potent feeling. I would ask whether there cannot be some rethinking in respect of this matter. It is not suggested that there has been any inefficiency; that has gone by the board. It is not suggested that there will be any powerful saving of money. What is being ignored, I respectfully submit, is the deep-seated feelings of Welshmen and Welshwomen.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the advantage of a Welsh-speaking commissioner is well appreciated, and there is and will be one. As I have said, the oral hearings will go on as before.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, I hesitate, as a Scotsman, to say anything to the noble and learned Lord on this matter. Did I understand him to say, however, that while he had had several dignified protests from distinguished people, there had been no riot and therefore that he could ignore what had been said?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, no, I do not believe that the noble Lord has got it quite right. He may be interested to know, however, that I have increased the number of whole-time commissioners to 15, including two for Scotland, and that there are in addition two part-time commissioners. This is part of the process of 123 achieving a better service for the whole of England and Wales, and I hope also for Great Britain.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, knowing of the sympathy that the noble and learned Lord has shown on other matters relating to Welsh aspirations, will he look at this again?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord is always persuasive, but I am afraid that the decision has been made. If there is any defect in the service, I shall of course look at it again. But the interests of efficiency are just as much in Welsh interests as in English interests.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord inform us whether he disapproves, therefore, of the designation of Cardiff as a capital city?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am afraid that this is rather outside the scope of the Question, which related to a somewhat narrower issue.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, it is the kernel of the Question.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, it may be the kernel, but it is not the lieutenant!