Sir ARTHUR ROBINSON, K.C.B., C.B.E., First Secretary; Mr. E. J. STROHMENGER, C.B., Accountant-General; Sir ALFRED WOODGATE C.B.E., Director of Establishments; are called in; and examined. Chairman. 1. Sir Arthur, I think we had better first turn to the statement showing particulars of the main branches of the Ministry and the staff in each grade employed, Table A, No. 1. I notice your Allowances Salaries, Wages and practically the same for 1924-25 as for 1923-24? (Sir Arthur Robinson.) That is So. are 2. Have you not shown any economy for the year on the new estimates?-(Sir Alfred Woodgate.) We have shown economy but it has been eaten up in other directions. 3. In what directions?-Annual increments to the staff for this year. All the staff have an annual increment. It comes to £29,000. 4. What is the position of your War Bonus? The War Bonus is down about £20,000, so that there is a difference of £9,000 in the increment which is not accounted for by the increase in the Vote. The Vote is increased £156?-(Sir Arthur Robinson.) The actual increase of salaries has gone up by £156. 5. Is your staff the same?-Almost exactly level at the moment. We have been going through a heavy process of reduction as you will have seen from the figures. At the moment we have got practically to the permanent level, subject to any further reduction of work. If you look at the first of the papers laid before you you will see the figures of the staff there. You 6. Paper marked "A"?-Yes. will see the staff on the 1st April, 1923, was 3,834, and on the 1st April, 1924, the staff was 3,775. There is a small reduction. 7. How does that compare with 1919-20? You get those figures in the same Statement "A." On the 1st April, 1919, the figures were 4,464 against 3,775 on the 1st April, 1924. On the 1st April, 1920, the figures had gone up to 6,040. 8. You have only been able to reduce the staff between 1919 and 1924 about 700? That is right. From the 1st April, 1919, to the 1st April, 1924, there is a net reduction in staff of roughly 700. You realise that during that period very much additional work has been thrown on the Department. 9. What additional work?-Maternity and Child Welfare work for example. The whole of that is a development since 1919. 10. How much staff does that take? Eighty-seven. Mr. Black. 11. That includes Tuberculosis and Venereal Disease?-(Sir Alfred Woodgate.) Yes. (Sir Arthur Robinson.) I have a table that will give you the figures you want. The main increases in staff 20 May, 1924.] [Continued. Sir ARTHUR ROBINSON, K.C.B.. C.B.E., The due to extra work since 1919 are, first of all, an increase of 145 in the Inspectorate under National Health Insurance. reason for that increase is that we undertook to do, on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, their Non-Compliance Inspection. work under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. Another increase in staff is in the Audit Department. There is an increase in the Audit Department of 133 men. The reason for that increase in staff is because each year additional work is thrown on to the Audit, and we have to get extra staff to do the extra work. There is another increase of staff under National Health Insurance, what we call the Staff of Regional Medical Officers. That, of course, is an entirely new service since 1919. 12. What does that increase amount to? Sixty-four. Sir Philip Pilditch. 16. I understood you to say that one reason why there is not a reduction in your expenditure on staff was that there had been considerable increments?-Yes. 17. What figures does that represent?Roughly £29,000 is represented by increments this year. 18. Is that in the total expenditure of £1,198,000? That is the part of the total expenditure of £1,198,000 which represents ordinary increments to the staff. 19. Those increments are those which would include the increments which were arranged for by the general re-organisation of the Civil Service which took place a few years ago. We have heard a good deal about it in connection with other services? Not quite so. That re-organisation introduced various changes in scales of salary. Those new scales of salary themselves included increment as people went on serving. The £29,000 represents those increments plus the increments on other classes which were not affected by that re-organisation. It is simply the increment element of the staff all round. 20. Your answer is, that £29,000 includes increments of all kinds, not only those caused by the re-organisation?— Just so. 21. You gave in answer to the Chairman some particulars about the considerable increase in staff that took place at the end of 1919 and the beginning of 1920. We see that the staff went up from 4,800 or thereabouts to 6,000?—Yes. 22. Was that all due to Maternity and Child Welfare? No, that was almost entirely due to the development of Housing. 23. I understood you to say it was due to Maternity and Child Welfare?—No. The Chairman was commenting on the fact that we had not shown a greater total decrease of staff between 1919 and 1924, and on that I made the comment that we had very considerable increases of work and I referred to Maternity and Child Welfare work as one of those increases. 24. You say that most of the increase that took place in 1919 and 1920 was due to Housing?-Yes. 25. Can you tell the Committee how much increase of staff resulted from the Maternity and Child Welfare Service?I think I can say in 1919 there was practically no staff employed on Maternity and Child Welfare at all, because the work had not really begun to develop at that time. Mr. Hannon. 26. 87 now?—Yes. Sir Philip Pilditch. 27. That does not answer the question. I was trying to find out what increased staff has arisen from that particular service. Can you tell me that?-I have a total staff of 87 people engaged in the branch of the office which deals with the administration of Maternity and Child Welfare, Welfare of the Blind, Tuberculosis and Venereal Disease. 20 May, 1924.] Sir ARTHUR ROBINSON, K.C.B., C.B.E., [Continued. Mr. E. J. STROHMENGER, C.B., and Sir ALFRED WOODGATE, C.B.E. 28. That is 87?—Yes. I think that staff is practically all new staff to work these new Acts. 29. Have you got the amount that they cost? I cannot tell you that at the moment. I can let you have it. 30. Another cause which I suppose would account for the whole staff not falling more rapidly than it has done was that you undertook some work in connection with the failure of Local Authorities to get on with the Housing Scheme. Was that so?-No. 31. What was it you said in that respect? I was giving you the increase of staff, and the point to which I referred as justifying increase of staff was what I call the Regional Medical Service under the National Health Insurance Acts, the great development of the Audit work of Ministry, and the fact that under the the Insurance Inspectorate we are doing what is called the Non-Compliance work under the Unemployment Insurance Act as agent for the Ministry of Labour. 32. What was the staff engaged on those particular services you have just mentioned?-If you take the Regional Medical Officers' staff, in 1919 there was none; there are now 64. If you take the Insurance Inspectorate, in 1919 there were 324; there are now 469. If you take the Audit (that is the District Audit which audits most of the accounts of Local Authorities) in July, 1919, there were 261; there are now 394. Mr. Hoffman. 33. Is that National Health Insurance inspection?-Yes. On the other side there are considerable decreases in staff. I do not know whether you want those. Sir Philip Pilditch. 3 I should like to have those?-In July, 1919 and April, 1924, we show a decrease of 24 on the Housing staff. 35. Will you give the figures in each case?-225 and 201, a decrease of 24. Then in July, 1919, we had a staff of 526 people who were engaged on what is called the work of Index Clearance, that is the work of bringing up to date the records of the insured population on the basis of which the Capitation Fee is paid to the doctors. That is a broad description of the work. 36. You had 526 in 1919?—Yes. The liability for that staff we got rid of altogether. 37. That is a decrease?—Yes. 38. Has that gone to some other Dopartment? No. What has happened is, the Approved Societies have taken responsibility for it. We have altered the organisation. 39. The Approved Societies do that work themselves now?-Yes. Then IT. 1919 we had 615 people who were dealing with the special Army and Navy Fund under the National Health Insurance Act. In April, 1924, that 615 had gone down to 181, partly by clearing up things that had resulted from the War and partly by the improved organisation of the work. There was a decrease of 434. 40. Is any of that work being done by other bodies besides you?-No. 41. That is cleared up?--Yes, that is cleared up. Then in July, 1919, we had 545 people dealing with the work of Deposit Contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts. Those are people not members of Approved Societies under the discretion given by the National Health Insurance Acts, and we have to deal with them direct at the Ministry. That staff in July, 1924, had come down to 251. There again the numbers have been reduced and we have made some improvements in the work. 42. Why have they been reduced?What has happened is that the number of Deposit Contributors has been reduced and we have been studying the work carefully and have made a very large improvement, I think, in the way in which the work has been done. We have managed to get the staff heavily reduced in consequence. 43. We may take it these large reductions of personnel arise from the gradual clearing up of War Services?-And also from improvements in organisation. 44. If you had not had these very large decreases which amount to 1,340 men you would have had a very large increase of staff and a very large increase of emoluments paid to them on these estimates?It does not necessarily follow. You have to remember there has been a considerable amount of extra work thrown on the Ministry of Health since it was set up. Normally if you amalgamate a couple of offices you would expect to have a reduction in running charges on them, but one has the counterfact that the Ministry of Health has been a developing organisation and you had to increase the staff to meet that development. 20 May, 1924.] [Continued. Sir ARTHUR ROBINSON, K.C.B, C.B.E., 45. I suppose you have no statement amongst these very excellent statements you have given us, or otherwise, that would give us during the period from 1919 what these general re-adjustments of staff have been on one side or the other, giving in more definite form what you have just told me?-I can put in the statement from which I have been reading which will show the increases. 46. I think at the time when this Committee and the House of Commons generally was calling for serious reductions-two years ago I think it was-you did effect in the Ministry of Health some considerable reductions of staff?-Yes. 47. Can you give me the date of that? -I think it stands in this way At the peak of the staff in the Ministry of Health, which was in December, 1920, there was a total staff of 6,462. By the 1st April, 1921, that staff was down to 6,085. By the 1st April, 1922, it was down to 4,134. 48. Is that the period I am speaking of ?-Yes. 49. If you could add to the statement you are going to make to us on the lines just suggested a few figures showing the actual decrease of staff caused by the readjustment of your services, savings and economies other than 1e-adjustments caused by services coming to an end, I think it would be useful?-You have the total figures of reduction which I have just given in this statement, and then I could give you a per contra account of increases and decreases if you would like more than that. Mr. Black. 50. I should like to ask you with regard to the relation of the present staff as to the efficiency of the administration. Are you thoroughly satisfied that you have sufficient staff now to look after every department and to see that Local Authorities who may not be so forward in their Health activities as other Authorities are brought up to the mark so that the whole of the Authorities throughout the country may get to a satisfactory standard of practice. Have you got a sufficient staff for that?-I should say at the moment I have. 51. Can you tell me whether there is anything in that, whether there is very much difference in Authorit es with regard to the efficiency they have reached? -The services in the Ministry of Health are not compulsory; they are services which the Local Authority do at their own discretion with financial assistance from the country. Whenever you are dealing with such a large number of Local Authorities you are going to have certain variations of standard and, of course, it takes a considerable time to get the service up, not to the best standard, but to what you call a good standard. We rely to a certain extent on advice and assistance from the Ministry, but we also have to rely, I think, on public opinion in the area as well I think I can say, as far as the share of the Ministry goes, there is adequate staff to carry out the Ministry's functions. 52. You do not think any of the citizens of this country in any particular area are suffering because of non-provision of services which are provided by other areas because you have not sufficient staff to look after it?-No, I do not think so. 53. Can you tell me whether you have any Inspectorate at all who is responsible for the incidence of tuberculosis in factories, or is that altogether in another Department? That is in charge of the Home Office. 54. You take no notice of the conditions with regard to tuberculosis in factories until the men out of the factories are brought into the sanatorium? There is a close liaison between our people and the Home Office people; they consult each other, and so on; but responsibility for it is with the Home Office. 55. Can you tell me whether the estimate of £1,198,000 is based upon the same standard of bonus as has been paid during the past year? 20 May, 1924.] [Continued. Sir ARTHUR ROBINSON, K.C.B., C.B.E., 59. You have reckoned it at 80?-The Treasury have told us to reckon it at 80. 60. If the cost of living was reduced it would mean a saving?—Yes. 61. With regard to B, 87 people. You had tuberculosis before 1919? (Sir Arthur Robinson.) This staff is solely the administrative staff in the Division. You have to take into account as well the medical staff which is shown in another part of this paper. 62. Of the 87, the number that would be added because of Maternity and Child Welfare and Welfare of the Blind, would it be more than 20?-It would be. The bulk of the work is done by Local Authorities. The real staff that is carrying out the Maternity. and Child Welfare Act is the staff of the Local Authorities. 63. You gave as a reason why the 3,775 had not been further reduced that Maternity and Child Welfare had been an additional charge because that department had been started since 1919. Would there be 20 in that department?— The one department does the central work of these four services. 64. It would not have added more than 20 because tuberculosis and venereal disease and town planning were in operation before?-I only quoted that as one illustration of the new work thrown on the Ministry. Let us take it at 20 for Maternity and Child Welfare. Colonel Henry Williams. 66. You spoke of taking over certain work from the Ministry of Labour, Noncompliance Work? (Sir Arthur Robinson.) Yes. 67. Is that a new service, or did you take over part of the staff of the Ministry of Labour when you took over that work? Is this a real increase of staff, or is it merely an increase by the Minister of Health and a reduction by the Ministry of Labour?-It is a real increase of staff because of the development of Unemployment Insurance under the Act of 1920. 68. It is a new service?-The alternative was for the Ministry of Labour when they got their Act of 1920 to form the whole of their own Inspectorate. They discussed it with us and we said, "We have got a staff which is doing this kind of Inspectorate work under another Act; we shall be able, if we take over the Noncompliance Work under the Unemployment Insurance Act, to do it without creating a fresh headquarters organisation; we shall need to make some increase to our staff, but the total charge to the taxpayer will be very much less than if you started a fresh organisation altogether." 69. Then it is not quite correct to say you took it over from the Ministry of Labour? The Ministry of Labour allotted to you, or the Government Department allotted to you, this work which was a fresh service? What I said was we performed it as agents for the Ministry of Labour. 70. They never did it? This is new work. 71. You said the number of Deposit Contributors in the Post Office had deHow do you account for that decrease? into Are they going more a tenApproved Societies?-There was dency for them to go more into Approved Societies. 65. Coming to the next page, "Administration of grants paid out of Local Taxation Account including grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts." Would not that work be better done under the Ministry of Agriculture? How does it come creased. under the Ministry of Health? I will ask the AccountantGeneral to answer that. (Mr. Strohmenger.) Parliament has decided that grants from the Consolidated Fund shall be paid to the Local Taxation Account, and the Ministry of Health are responsible for the whole of the administration of the Local Taxation Account, and the calculation of the grant depends very much, of course, on Local Authorities' returns of assessable value, for which the Ministry of Health are responsible. It is entirely foreign to the work of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is entirely a question of Local Authorities and Local Taxation. It is nothing to do with agriculture as such. Mr. Hoffman. 72. What do you mean by "There was a tendency for them to go more into Approved Societies "?-For a time the number of Deposit Contributors showed a considerable decrease. That process seems to have stopped at present. 73. Is it increasing again? No, it is just about stationary.-(Mr. Strohmenger.) It was due very largely to the War. During the War period so many people who were not really used to employment came into employment, and they were, in |