HC Deb 20 February 1958 vol 582 cc1529-40

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

10.11 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is to reply to the debate tonight and is responsible for the Ordnance Survey Department, not to dismiss as redundant some 80 cartographic surveyors and draughtsmen, most of whom have at least ten years of service, who have families and dependants, who have housing commitments and who are at least middle-aged, when at the same time the Minister proposes to take on 150 new staff, mostly boys and girls.

The Minister's motive is to save a few thousand pounds, but the issue which I wish to put to him tonight is a human one; I want to plead for the happiness and well-being of some Southampton and Chessington men and women who have served the Minister loyally and capably.

The simple facts are these. Ordnance Survey staff were recently awarded a pay increase by an arbitration award, whereupon the Treasury instructed the Department to reduce its staff to save some of the money awarded in the pay increase. The original number to be dismissed was much greater than it is now. The union concerned and the management together have reduced the impact of the Treasury's cruel decision to its lowest possible number and have done their best to ensure that, when dismissals came, the principle of "last in, first out" and the protection of permanent posts applied. After the union and the management have done all that they can, the bitter fact remains, however, that some very good people face tragedy. The villain of the piece is either the Minister who is to reply to this debate or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

First, a word about the redundancy itself. The Minister cannot say that this is a question of getting rid of inefficient people. Throughout the grim negotiations, it has been admitted that the men and women for whom I am pleading are excellent workers. Even the cold note of the Director-General when he sacked them ended with his "deep appreciation of the services they had rendered to the Department."

It is not a question of reducing the work of the Department—far from it. The work of Ordnance Survey goes steadily on. Maps change as the face of Britain changes. The work that these people have been doing must continue or the Department will suffer. In fact, newcomers will have to be taught over a number of years the jobs that these people are doing and these newcomers will be carried by the Ordnance Survey Department in their early days. I suggest to the Minister that this is not economy, but waste. It is penny wisdom and pound folly.

Nor is it a question of making Ordnance Survey more efficient by getting rid of overlapping or of limpets If that were true, Ordnance Survey would stand condemned for allowing the Department to remain at a swollen strength so long. It is not true and the Minister knows that it is not true. He is getting rid of skilled people who are doing important jobs and whose posts will have to be filled.

The cut is linked purely and simply with the rise in pay. It is an unintelligent Geddes Axe, and falls on the righteous. The Government now say, "Since we have given this pay rise, someone must pay for it with his livelihood." Inside the temperate plea that I am making tonight, I find it impossible to comment on such an attitude. I am sure that no one in the Department approves of the dismissals. The managers and overseers who just now meet each day their faithful servants who are under notice, must feel unhappy and ashamed, if they are decent and honourable men, as I know them to be.

Here let me pay a tribute to the union concerned—the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. Here is a union that has always taken a positive interest in the efficiency of the Department, and often makes suggestions for improving the quality and efficiency of the work in the Ordnance Survey Department. That union is the last to plead for worthless people. As I have said, management and union have softened the blow. How has this been done? It has been done chiefly by relying on natural wastage by age, by refusing to fill vacancies and by cutting down the intake. If the reduction is necessary—and I do not think that it is—this is the obvious way of meeting the Treasury demand. In this way all the money that the Treasury want to save could have been obtained within a very short time.

It seems almost as if someone wants blood, because the Minister insists on appointing more newcomers than he is dismissing old hands. When the union begged him not to do this, he replied that if he did not appoint enough youngsters he would be breaking faith with candidates, and would upset … the even flow of recruits. Surely, if one has to break faith, it is better to break faith with newcomers, not yet in, than with old and tried servants.

In 1950 and 1955 I said of the Ordnance Survey Department in this House: In detail, accuracy, skill, science and artistry, our … maps are second to none … we are fortunate to possess … at Southampton and Chessington a highly-skilled and exceptionally loyal and conscientious body of civil servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 373.] Both former Ministers joined in that tribute. Yet it is this loyal team that the Minister now chooses to humiliate and outrage.

I want the Minister to know what he is doing—just who these unestablished people are. Most of them are middle-aged, and have a highly-specialised skill which is invaluable to the Ordnance Survey Department, but is not so broadly useful outside. They will not easily get jobs outside. For instance, it is now two months since they were told that they were under notice but could leave at once if they got another job. In that time, not one of them who is over forty has got a job, and the local employment exchange has made it quite clear that it will be difficult to find them suitable jobs. One man applied for a post. Asked why he left his previous job he replied "Redundancy". The possible employer would not believe him, asking, "How can you be redundant if Ordnance Survey is also taking on, at this moment, 150 new hands?"

I want now to give to the House some of the cases of my constituents. I do not give their names, but I can vouch for the complete accuracy of what I shall say. A woman over 50 years of age joined the Department in the war years, in response to a patriotic appeal. Her husband had left the Ordnance Survey Department to serve in the Army. She left the Department when her husband came back, but he died in 1948 and she rejoined the Department.

That is why she is unestablished. As I shall show, most of these unestablished people are unestablished for some human reason, not because of technical deficiency in the skill and industry demanded for the job. That woman is a part supporter of an ex-Royal Navy invalid brother. Her father worked for the Ordnance Survey Department for 45 years. She has had excellent reports for every year she has been there, and she is dismissed.

Some of these people tried to get established, and failed. The examination is in two parts—one technical, one personal. Several of them passed the technical examination with flying colours—for example, one was upgraded from Grade IV to Grade II—but they failed merely at the interview. One with twenty years' service, doubly promoted, but highly nervous and incapable of being anything but terrified before an establishment board, has been dismissed. Another man, also promoted on technical grounds, but tubercular and requiring a job where he can sit—a highly competent officer, and sole supporter of his aged mother—has been dismissed. Another, with fifteen years' service, invalided out of the R.A.F. and holding the D.F.M., who, because of his disability has to be near his work, has been dismissed. He started two years ago to buy a house on mortgage, and he will not even get back all his deposit if he has to sell his house because of the rising rate of interest.

There is another woman with eighteen years' service who keeps her aged parents, her 82-year-old father being an invalid; she has been dismissed. A woman who has given twenty-four years of highly competent work as a photo-draughtsman—her life's work—to the Department, invaluable in the Department but in the world outside finding it difficult to get another post, has been dismissed.

Another woman writes: I have spent moat of my life in Ordnance Survey. Indeed, it is my career. I have suffered the bad with the good. Incidentally, those of us who know Ordnance Survey know just how bad was the bad and how well these men and women stuck by Ordnance Survey during the war. She goes on: Is it just that new entrants to whom the Service means nothing should take our places? Remember that it takes three years to make a competent draughtsman, and five a photo-draughtsman. Should the use of trained people be lost to the nation and time be spent in training those who can be of no real use for some time? Another fine young man came to see me last week, invalided out of the Regular Army, after serving ten years. He is buying his house on mortgage, and now faces disaster—a first-class man, a first-class Southampton citizen. Incidentally, I hope that my friends on the nonparty committee of the House looking after disabled ex-Service men will take note of some of the cases I have mentioned tonight.

These are the kind of people whose life of loyal service has been shattered by a decision of the Minister. All my life, I have fought against the ruthlessness of some private firms which pick up a man and drop him as if he is a tool. When I described the circumstances giving rise to this debate to a friend of mine, an hon. Gentleman opposite, he told me that his firm would never treat a faithful employee in this way. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I know that he was speaking the truth. Why should the Minister be more unkind than the best private employers in this country? I understand, incidentally, that some of the skilled men have been offered jobs as storekeepers at half the wage.

I am happy that, in this debate, I am supported by two of my Hampshire friends, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), and I am happy to know that I am supported by, even if he has not a chance to speak, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins). I beg the Minister, at this eleventh hour, to save these people, to solve the problem of finding economies in his Department by natural wastage and a reduction of intake. His reply tonight can make some 80 families happy or confirm their bitter unhappiness and unjust treatment.

I have recently shown, by Question and Answer in the House, that the Minister has already achieved his main economy in other ways, by reducing the intake. The payment of gratuities and the waste of money and labour in training new entrants between them wipe out the pitiful sum which he proposes to save by repaying honourable service with base ingratitude. What is involved is merely a little time and a few thousand pounds. The Minister has a chance to right a wrong tonight. I sincerely hope that he will take it.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. John Howard (Southampton, Test)

I am glad to be able to speak for a few minutes in this debate, because the Ordnance Survey Office in Southampton is in my constituency, because some of the people made redundant are constituents of mine, and certain of them are my personal friends.

It is always a tragic time when redundancy hits any town. I will not review the personal instances which could be quoted; the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has already demonstrated that there is severe hardship in a number of homes in Southampton as a result of redundancy in the Ordnance Survey Depot. Reduction in armaments, for example, which is applauded frequently on both sides, gives rise to temporary redundancy which may be taken up. Here we have redundancy from a different cause. We are told that the redundancy arises from introducing new entrants into the office with the intention of achieving a better balance. Be that as it may, the introduction of these new entrants has inevitably been at the expense of the temporary staff. Some of them have had no opportunity to become established. Others, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has indicated, have tried, but have not been successful.

I agree that it is necessary to maintain the distinction between permanent and temporary staffs. But, nevertheless, the temporary staff at the Ordnance Survey Office, once it was decided to retain the office in Southampton and not move it to Wellingborough, certainly believed that their temporary employment would last for the rest of their working lives. It has been a dreadful blow to them and to the town that these redundancies have occurred.

In speaking in this debate, I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to be as generous as possible with gratuities, to use his good offices to the utmost extent to find new jobs for people who have been discharged, and, in particular, to leave those who find it impossible to obtain a suitable job until the last possible moment before their discharge or, if practical, fill an unexpected vacancy in the Department.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

In the one minute to which I promise to restrict myself, I would like to join my two neighbours from Southampton, the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), in their plea in this very serious case of great personal hardship.

I find it almost impossible to apply the definition of "temporary" or "unestablished" to people with over 20 years' service in the Ordnance Survey Office. I speak from my experience in private industry. Although we sometimes have to make the same distinction when a person has been with us as long as that, I can conceive no circumstances under which we would recruit a number of young people to take the place of old faithful servants. It is no good talking in scholastic fashion about the balance of age groups. This is a very real human problem. I wonder what sort of reply the Minister of Labour would make if an hon. Gentleman were to raise this issue in respect of a private firm. I am sure that he would speak grave words of censure about a private firm that behaved like that.

I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know is on our side in this matter, not to allow himself to be tied up entirely with the Departmental answer. This is a case of organisation getting out of hand. I know him as a great personal friend and a sincere lover of humanity. Let him show, even in this age, that human beings do control Departments and that we are not subjected entirely to the organisation as a mere cog in the machine.

10.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I am grateful both to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), who raised this important debate, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) for the way in which they have all dealt with this matter. Of course, we are dealing with a very acute human problem.

I realise the force, feeling and genuineness behind the words of both the hon. Member for Itchen and my two hon. Friends. But I must put one or two facts before the House to try to get this matter in perspective, as I see it.

First, I should like to express my own very genuine regret that it has been found necessary to terminate the services of some of these people, who have served for many years in some cases and have given loyal service. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances which I am coining to in a moment, and for the reasons which I shall give, the course which we had to take was the right and proper one. I do not say that it was an easy one, but I say that it was the right one.

For some years, the Ordnance Survey has been endeavouring to recruit cartographic draughtsmen and surveyors through the Civil Service Commission to fill the overall non-industrial complement authorised by the Treasury. This target was never reached because the high rate of resignation, particularly from the surveying staff, and the normal wastage were greater than the number of acceptable recruits coming forward. But during last summer, as a result of a special effort by the Civil Service Commission, there was a marked improvement in recruitment. Nearly 300 candidates were interviewed during August, September and October, and over 200 were accepted for appointment as cartographic draughtsman or surveyors.

Had recruiting continued at this rate or thereabouts for another two or three months the Department's then authorised complement would have been filled, and a sufficient number of established recruits would have been available to replace the temporary staff during the course of 1958. I emphasise that fact because it is of some importance, in that there was not merely the point which the hon. Member made—as to the wage increase—but also the fact that there would have been a sufficient number of men to fill the complement and, that being so, the temporary staff would have had to go in any case.

A claim by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants for improved rates of pay for cartographic draftsmen in the Government service was under consideration during the summer months, and it was ultimately submitted to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal on 11th October. The Tribunal awarded an increase of about 15 per cent. Before the Tribunal's award was announced the Civil Service Commission had informed these 200 or so candidates that they had been found acceptable for appointment to the Government service, and the Department had at that time arranged for some 50 of them to report for duty. At the same time, the gravity of the country's economic situation had led to the announcement of the Government's attitude towards wage increases which was made in this House on 29th and 30th October, when the determination of the Government not to finance inflationary wage and salary awards was clearly explained. 'The then Chancellor said: If costs, including wage costs, go up, activity will have to be reduced and this will be the policy where the Government are looked to as the source of cash "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1957; Vol. 575, c. 57.] In other words, it was and is the Government's policy that increased wages costs falling on the Exchequer should be met by corresponding saving elsewhere.

It was accordingly necessary to consider the implementation of the award by the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, in so far as it concerned the Ordnance Survey Department, in relation to the Government's economic policy, and as a result it was decided that the Department should restrict its non-industrial strength to 3,827, which was a cut of 200 on the previously authorised complement.

We were then faced with a situation in which we had 200 fewer posts and over 200 additional draughtsmen. It was then apparent that few of the new recruits could be offered appointments within a reasonable period if the Department was to keep its complement to the new figure, unless a corresponding reduction was made from the staff already in posts. In those circumstances, three courses seemed to be open. First, we could retain the existing staff, including the temporary staff, in which case we would have had to inform all the accepted candidates other than those who had received joining instructions that appointments would not be available for some months, and in some cases perhaps not for over a year; secondly, we could have discharged all the temporary staff at once and replaced them by new recruits; and, thirdly, we could have discharged some temporary staff immediately and the remainder later and by stages, and replaced them gradually by new recruits.

After careful consideration—this was after my right hon. Friend had seen a delegation led by the General Secretary of the union concerned—it was decided to adopt the third course for several reasons; first, because, after a special drive by the Commission to obtain recruits, the failure to offer them appointment within a reasonable period would have been regarded as a breach of faith by the candidates, their parents and their schools and would have been bound to have an adverse effect upon Civil Service recruitment as a whole and the Ordnance Survey in particular; secondly, it was very desirable to have an even flow of new recruits. It really is important to secure a proper age distribution and avoid upsetting training arrangements. Thirdly, a further limited competition for establishment to the temporary staff could not be justified while the Department had awaiting appointment over 200 candidates who had already been informed that they had been accepted. Fourthly, it had always been the aim that staff in these posts, because of the long-term nature of the work of the Department, should be permanent. This is, indeed, a principle which is applied throughout the whole of the Civil Service.

Fifthly, the recruitment position in the autumn last year had in any case made it likely that during the course of the next few months it would have been possible to fill these posts with permanent staff, which would in any case have involved the discharge of the temporary staff. I do not think we should overlook that point. Sixthly, the temporary staff had been given one, and in most cases more than one, opportunity to become established. The hon. Member for Itchen instanced some cases in which he said there was great difficulty, but in the main it is important to appreciate the fact that most of these people had an opportunity to become established at some time.

Lastly, most of the staff concerned will be eligible for consideration for a gratuity on their discharge. My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred to this matter of gratuities. Undoubtedly it is true that in some cases there will be very substantial gratuities, and I am very glad indeed that that is so. Of course, that is an important consideration for those who are on temporary engagement.

My right hon. Friend agreed, after seeing the representatives of this union, that the discharge of these temporary surveyors and draftsmen should be spread over a period of nearly a year and that not more than 25 would go in any period of three months. This spread-over should ease the position a good deal. Most of these people will be eligible for a gratuity. Arrangements have been made to draw the attention of the Ministry of Labour and National Service and other Government Departments to the fact that these discharged officers will be available for other employment. My own Ministry has also made arrangements to inform the staff of any other vacancies which are brought to its notice. It is hoped that most of them will be able to obtain other employment without undue delay, and we are indeed making special attempts to this end.

I should emphasise that the decision in this matter arose directly from a reduction in the staff complement following the pay award. It was due to the fact that candidates had become available who satisfied the Commission that they were suitable for appointment as established staff. I would point out that these appointments can only be made within a reasonable period by the discharge of temporary staff. There is no suggestion that temporary staff are other than what their name implies.

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh who takes a keen interest in labour problems of this kind. He differs from me on this question, but the fact remains that if they are temporary staff they have certain advantages as such. One cannot have it both ways. If they are temporary staff, they must accept the uncertainty of employment. That uncertainty must go with that very term. I am sorry that hon. Members do not agree with that, but I am afraid that that is really fundamental to the position in the Civil Service.

Unless this principle is accepted—and there is no reason to believe that it is not accepted by the organisations representing civil servants—there would be little point in differentiating between staff who make the Civil Service their career and who are suitable for appointment to pensionable posts, and those who, knowing the position, either do not attempt to pass the necessary examinations or fail to do so. It is because of the insecurity of their position that provision is made for the payment of these gratuities to those who serve more than five years.

I have every sympathy with those whose employment will be terminated in this way, but I must point out that this difficulty was bound to arise sooner or later as recruiting improved, irrespective of the Government's announcement on wages at the end of October. I hope very much that they will be able to obtain alternative employment, and I assure hon. Members that my own Ministry and the Ministry of Labour and National Service will do all they can in that respect.

I realise the hardship in individual cases—I am very sorry indeed that it should be so—but, faced with this problem and faced with the terms of employment in the Civil Service, I do not see what more my right hon. Friend could have done than he has already to try to ease the difficulty that undoubtedly exists. I understand very much the feeling of hon. Members, but I have tried to put the position, as I see it, it its proper perspective. I believe that if t looked at in that way, everyone will realise that we have tried to do the best we could within the terms within which we can operate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.