§ 20. Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, by paragraph 187 of the Report on the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services, the grade of Excise assistant supervisor was not one of the grades from which the new surveying grade was constituted; and whether officers of Excise origin have as much right to look for promotion to vacancies in the new surveying grade as they formerly had to look for promotion to the position of assistant supervisor?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member is misinformed. The class of Excise assistant supervisor was one of the classes from which the new surveying grade was constituted. Officers of Excise origin who formerly had the prospect of promotion to the class of assistant supervisor at £280 fixed, now have the prospect, with others, of promotion to the larger class of surveyors at £320 to £450.
§ 21. Mr. TOUCHEasked whether most of the additional work under the National Insurance Act imposed on the Customs and Excise Department has been performed by the Excise branch; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among officers of Excise origin on account of the fact that promotions to the grade of surveyor since the imposition of this additional work have been made solely from officers of Customs origin; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhen the work of the Customs and Excise Department was increased by the addition of duties under the National Insurance Act, the staff was also increased. I have no grounds for thinking that any one section of the staff has borne more than its fair share of the total work of the Department. As regards promotions to the new surveying grade, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 5th December last. I see no reason for any action on my part.
§ Mr. TOUCHEWould the right hon. Gentleman explain on what principle preference is given in promotion to one branch of the service over the other?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman puts a question which is not an accurate one. There is no preference given. I have answered many questions to that effect.
§ Mr. SNOWDENDid not the right hon. Gentleman admit that more than 104 promotions had been given to one branch of the service and not a single promotion to the other?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not so. My hon. Friend very ingeniously manages to put a question which extracts one particular form of promotion and refrains from putting a question affecting promotions in another branch of the service.
§ Mr. SNOWDENWill the right hon. Gentleman state what promotions have been given in the Excise service?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. I have already done so. If my hon. Friend will put down a question again I shall be happy to do so. I cannot carry these things in my head, but if I am not much mistaken the answer I gave to-day will bring it out.
§ 22. Mr. TOUCHEasked the number of unattached surveyors of Customs origin and of Excise origin, respectively, in the Customs and Excise Department; whether it is intended to appoint forty two more officers of Customs origin to the position of unattached surveyors before any officers of Excise origin are appointed thereto; and what steps, if any, are to be taken to ensure the provision of an adequate proportion of unattached surveyors of Excise origin, seeing that the number of officers employed in the Excise branch of the Department is about double the number of the officers employed in the Customs branch?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe numbers of the surveyors who at the present moment are not attached to fixed districts are ninety-four of Customs origin and thirty of Excise origin. Forty-two promotions of ex-Customs clerks will be made as recommended by the Amalgamation Committee. As regards the last part of the question I must point out that there are no longer separate Customs and Excise branches in the department, and that the normal method of filling vacancies in the surveyor grade will be by competitive examination of members of the officer grade.
§ Mr. TOUCHEDo the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given not themselves show that the appointments have been unfairly disproportionate — ninety-four to the Customs and thirty-two to the Excise—having regard to the fact that the Excise officers are much greater in number than the officers of Customs origin?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat only shows that the hon. Member has chosen a particular branch of the service in which there is on excess of promotions from the Customs, whereas he has not chosen the other part of the Excise officers to the contrary.
§ Mr. TOUCHEWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the other part is?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have already answered that question.
§ 23. Mr. TOUCHEasked how many officers held the rank of surveyor in the Customs Department prior to the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services; how many vacancies, formerly filled by surveyors of Customs origin, have occurred since the 3rd May last; and whether he is aware that the fact that 1973 employment cannot be found in the Customs branch of the amalgamated department for most of the 104 unattached surveyors of Customs origin promoted since that date, indicates that the promotions so made are much in excess of the prospects of promotion of these officers prior to the amalgamation?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe grade of surveyor in the new Customs and Excise service takes the place of a number of classes with various names in the former service. On the constitution of the new surveyor grade there were included 194 men who in the Customs service before amalgamation held the rank of surveyor or analogous rank. Five of the 194 have retired since 3rd May last. As regards the remaining part of the question, I must point out that there is no separate Customs branch in the Customs and Excise service, and I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 16th ultimo on this subject.
§ Mr. TOUCHEIs it not the case that the greater number of the appointments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, represent practically what was formerly the Excise Department rather than the Customs?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI could not give an answer to that question without notice.