HC Deb 30 January 1958 vol 581 cc657-66

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

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I desire to raise the question of the use of private motor vehicles on Government business by Government employees. This is a practice which I do not condemn altogether. I realise perfectly well that there are many occasions on which the use of a Government employee's own car on official business is an economy and a real saving of expense. There might be occasions when there would be serious loss of official time if the official used public transport. There might be occasions when it is far cheaper for the official to use his own car on the public business than to use an official car.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a rather unnecessary generosity with the taxpayers' money in the case of authorised users of cars in the Government service. I should explain that, as I understand it, there are two categories of authorised user. There is the official who is on the lower rate and who is authorised to use his car when public transport is available. If he is so using his car on official business, then he is paid 2d. a mile. I have no complaint about that rate of payment for the use of the private car on official business. That is merely an estimate of the cost per mile of public transport and bears no relation, of course, to the motoring cost itself.

It is, however, worth bearing in mind that 2d. a mile when one is considering the rate payable to the authorised user on the higher rate. The authorised user on the higher rate is entitled to use his own car, to quote paragraph 41 (a) of the Estacode, when …public transport is not available or cannot be used without serious (not merely some) loss of official time or that for some other reason the use of a private motor vehicle is in the public interest. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the criterion is for in the public interest because some Departments construe that very narrowly while others construe it rather widely, to say the least of it?

The paragraph I have quoted also says that it is a matter which has to be decided by a senior officer. There again, I am not clear whether that means an officer senior to the official asking for permission to use the car, or an officer classified as a senior officer and who might give himself authority, if he gave himself a good enough reason which satisfied him that the use of the car was in the public interest.

I quote again from the paragraph: Whenever practicable each journey, or, in the case of regular travellers, each programme of journeys should be authorised beforehand by a senior officer. I understand that the main thing is for the official to get on the list of authorised users and, once he is on that list, in some Departments the form of words whenever practicable as a proviso for the use of his car is not a very great obstacle.

From common observation, it seems that the more senior an officer, the more easy it is for him to get on the list and it probably follows from that that the more powerful is the car that is being used. That is an important point in considering the rate of payment, because the rate of payment varies with the horsepower of the car. If the official's car is a 10 horse-power car or less, he receives 7¾d. a mile for the first 2,000 miles.

Let us suppose that he has good reason for travelling from London to my constituency and back, a journey of 440 miles; at 7¾d. a mile the taxpayer would pay out to him £14 4s. That is nearly three times as much as the first-class railway fare of £5 0s. 6d. It is fair to say that out of that £14 4s. he would have to pay 50s. in petrol, but even taking that into account, together with fair wear and tear of the car, and so on, it looks to me as if he would make a profit of about £10 out of the trip. In fact, the Department, and therefore the taxpayer, would be better off if the Department had hired him a car from a private car-hire firm which would have cost only £4 10s. for three days plus 50s. for the petrol, a matter of £7 instead of the £14 4s. which I quoted.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

Does the hon. Member know of any case, or has he heard of any case, of a civil servant being authorised to go from London to his constituency and back on official business?

Mr. Page

It does not matter whether it is a journey of 440 miles or of four miles, the same proportions apply.

If he is a little more extravagant in his motoring tastes, and the car is more than 10 horse power, he comes under a still higher rate. Even if it is only one horse power more, such as a Ford Anglia, he gets 9¼d. a mile. So, for the same journey—I will use that distance because I do not think it matters whether the distance is long or short—he would receive £16 11s., well over three times the first-class railway fare. He could have used a hired car for less than half that amount.

It is true that what seems on these figures to be a profitable business does not go on indefinitely. The rate is reduced after the first 2,000 miles and reduced again after 5,000 miles. When a man has done 2,000 miles in one year, the rate is cut down to 6d. a mile for a 10-h.p. car or 7¾d. for a car over 10-h.p. After 5,000 it is 4¾d. a mile for a 10-h.p. car and 6¼d. a mile for a car over 10-h.p. In fairness I must say that if he takes an official passenger, he gets only another ½d. a mile. For the journey which I have mentioned an official who was driving with two official passengers would cost the taxpayer just about the same amount as if the three of them went first-class by train. The taxpayer gains only if there is a driver plus three official passengers.

It seems to me little wonder that the use of one's private car on official business is something of a popular pastime in the Civil Service. I have here the figures for the Post Office. Out of 350,000 employees 4,900 are authorised users, and to them the Post Office pays out £480,000 a year, an average of £100 each tax free per annum. If my hon. and learned Friend looks into the authorised user list in the Engineering Department of the Post Office, it may be that he will find a fruitful field for economies.

In the Ministry of Power 325 officers out of a staff of 1,957, that is, one-sixth of the whole staff of the Ministry, are authorised users. They receive £82,000 a year, an average of £250 a year each, tax-free. In this case, some of the money is recoverable from various sources, so the taxpayer bears only about £60,000. If my figures are correct, it is difficult to believe that about 3¼ million miles have to be travelled each year by the officials of the Ministry of Power under circumstances in which public transport is said not to be available. The Ministry of Supply imposes only £30,000 a year on the taxpayers; 791 of its staff are authorised users.

I take these three Departments, the Post Office, the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Supply, entirely at random. I do not know whether they are different from others in this respect. The figures I have used were given in Parliamentary Answers to Questions. I do not know the figures from the other Departments. They may be better or they may be worse. It would be interesting to know, if my right hon. and learned Friend has the figures, the total amount paid out annually to authorised users for the use of private cars on official business. If the other Departments are running on something like the same lines as those which I have cited, the total sum must be about £3 million or £4 million a year. I should like to know what the Treasury officials pay out to themselves as authorised users during the year.

I am aware that this sort of payment goes on in private industry at even higher rates than I have given, but Government Departments should set an example of economy. The matter requires most careful scrutiny. It is always easy to justify a single journey. Mr. X, an official in some Department, has done his 2,000 miles. He has only a 10-horse power car going at the rate of 6d. per mile. He only needs to travel 30 miles; that is, only 15s. What is 15s.? But when that is multiplied throughout the Departments on many thousands of occasions it adds up to a formidable sum, which does not stand comparison with the figures for a hired private car, let alone for railway fares.

I was anxious to raise this matter now, because in answers to a Parliamentary Question I put to the predecessor of my hon. and learned Friend at the Treasury I was informed that the matter was under discussion by the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. For that reason I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend may not be able to answer my questions fully, but it makes me anxious.

Perhaps some may say that we must not interfere while the discussions are going on, but this is taxpayers' money. My hon. and learned Friend is spokesman for the taxpayer—or his officials on the Whitley Council are—and I urge him to speak up in protection of the taxpayer. By putting some of the facts on record may have encouraged his officials to say in those discussions that there does not seem to be any justification for expenditure at the present rate for the use of private cars on official business, let alone for any increase in the expenditure. I hope that the discussions are not as to whether there shall be an increase in the rates. I hope that those who are taking part in the discussions will realise the earnest determination of the country in its present mood to press the Government to economise in every possible way, even if, as in this case, it means only a few million pounds a year.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has referred to the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the negotiations which are being conducted between that body and the Government. I am Chairman of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and I am personally concerned with the negotiations which are taking place and which have been in progress for some time.

If I may say so, I very much regret the innuendo and bias in the hon. Member's presentation of the facts. I think that is to be deplored. His use of words such as "popular pastime" in relation to journeys on official business is quite unjustifiable unless he has evidence that civil servants are extravagantly and irresponsibly using private cars for official journeys.

The hon. Member has mentioned three points: first, are there too many civil servants using their own cars on official journeys; secondly, do they use them unnecessarily or uneconomically; and thirdly, are the mileage allowances paid to them fair or excessive? The first two points are points of administration and not of negotiation. The third point, that of the mileage allowances, obviously raises matters for negotiation between the car users and their employers on whose behalf they use the cars, and that is the only point under negotiation, complicated though it is. As the hon. Member will realise, there are many complications about arriving at a fair and proper figure for a mileage allowance which will cover all the expenses—depreciation, taxation, repairs and renewals, as well as petrol and oil—which are unavoidable in the use of a car.

May I deal with that question for a brief moment? Are the mileage allowances fair or excessive? Certainly they are under review. They are under review at the request of the Staff Side because the cost of petrol has been rising and that must affect the adequacy or otherwise of the mileage allowances. Various proposals have been made from both sides, but I do not wish to dwell on them in detail.

All I will say in this connection is that both sides rely heavily on advice and experience offered freely to them by the Automobile Association, so that our evidence is obtained from an external and independent source, coupled with the practical experience of the car users themselves. I hope that we can bring these discussions to an early end, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no unnecessary delay in conducting them. They are difficult, especially when proposals are made which will give benefits to some and worsen conditions for others. I need not tell the hon. Member the sort of difficulties which confront negotiators when that sort of proposition is put to them. We are doing our best to reconcile the different interests and to arrive at a fair solution.

Turning to the other two questions, which are of administration, I will not defend for a single moment the unnecessary use of private cars on official business or official cars on official business. I will not defend that any more than I am prepared to defend the use by those in industry of their own cars on firms' business or their firms' cars on their own business in circumstances which would be open to precisely the same criticism.

However, one never gets anywhere defending one set of people by criticising another. We must all be against waste or extravagance, whether it it be in public service or in private industry, but hon. Members, who lay their representations with great sincerity and earnestness before the Inland Revenue authorities on how indispensable their motor car is in the discharge of their Parliamentary business, how much it costs and how much relief they should get, must be very careful before criticising civil servants who use their own cars at other people's direction, and never without their consent.

Mr. Page

If I may say so, I have not myself got a car.

Mr. Houghton

Then the hon. Member is hereby acquitted of any undesirable motive or other delinquency in this connection.

The senior officers who are mentioned are officers senior enough in the administration to judge whether a car is being necessarily and properly used, and authorise the use. If people are put on the list of car users, it is only because their job entitles them to be there. If a senior officer does not authorise the use of a private car on official business, the hire-mileage allowances cannot be claimed—in fact, no allowances can be claimed at all.

This is wholly a matter of administration. I will not suggest that there is no room for tightening up and additional scrutiny—there nearly always is room for additional scrutiny. Bureaucracy has much the same faults everywhere. Indeed, one sees in industry, too, that care is not always taken to economise in these small matters. But I think that the hon. Gentleman should rest assured that in the public service the senior officers are neither stupid, dishonest nor careless in the discharge of their duties. They have responsibilities, and I am sure they discharge them. Nor are civil servants themselves any less worthy than other citizens who are put in a similar position.

I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will carry away from this debate a somewhat different feeling about this matter, though he is still, I know, waiting for an assurance from his hon. and learned Friend. I apologise for stepping in between the hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary, but I could not sit here—and I have sat here for a long time waiting for this Adjournment debate—without saying my piece on this difficult subject. I will defend the Civil Service against the hon. Gentleman anywhere, at any time, on this particular issue.

11.13 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

As both my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) have pointed out, this matter is under discussion at present in the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and I confess that I therefore regard this debate as singularly ill-timed. It probably helps that the two hon. Gentlemen have been putting, as it were, the two sides against each other, but I cannot help feeling that it is not in the public interest for me to intervene, considering that the Treasury is at the moment representing the public point of view before the National Whitley Council.

Dealing, not with the point under negotiation but purely with the administration of the present scheme, there are one or two minor things that I can say that, perhaps, would be of help. The Estacode rules to which my hon. Friend has referred apply to the whole of the Civil Service and, obviously, rules must be expressed in terms wide enough to cover a great width of circumstances.

When Estacode refers to the public interest being served by the use of private motor cars, this refers not only to the saving of official time—which is important, and I will come to that later—but also to journeys such as those between points that are poorly served by public transport, those on which secret papers or delicate or bulky equipment have to be carried, and those made by several officers who need to discuss official matters en route.

Those are only a few examples; but the main consideration throughout is the saving of official time and official money. Let me remind my hon. Friend that official time can be worth a great deal. Consider the case of an officer whose salary is £1,500 a year. His time, based on his salary, and ignoring overheads, is worth about £1 an hour, and it does not require the saving of much of his time to put quite a different complexion on the comparison between motor car and public transport.

My hon. Friend has asked that journeys should be properly authorised, and I was also asked who is a "senior officer". The authorisation comes from an officer charged specifically with this special duty. Of course, the circumstances vary from case to case; they would be different in London from a regional headquarters or a local office but, in each case, the authorisation is given by an officer with this special function; and in no case can an officer authorise his own journeys.

My hon. Friend started to give an example of a journey between his own constituency and Westminster, and he was not altogether correct when he said that distance did not matter. When he cites a long-distance journey, of course the figures are more striking; but a journey such as that would in almost every case have to be made by public transport. There is a special section in the Estacode rules governing long journeys where motor-car travel would be neither the most useful nor the most suitable. Therefore, before motor-car allowance for a round trip between Crosby and Westminster could be authorised, there would have to be some very special reasons put forward.

Therefore, the figures which will appear to be very striking when they appear in my hon. Friend's local newspaper, are in fact completely academic when used in this discussion tonight. My hon. Friend asked me to give some total estimate. While I cannot give the exact figure, I can say that the suggestion of £3 million to £4 million is far too high. Taking the total mileage of about 50 million a year, the figure, based on the higher rates, would be around only £1 million to £1½ million. The real test is whether that is a saving or whether it would be cheaper overall to make use of public transport.

The Treasury staff of whom my hon. Friend spoke do not have much call to travel around the more inaccessible parts of the Kingdom, so it is only fair to say that they do not provide a really typical example is the present context. But in point of fact, for the 12 months ended last December, 24 Treasury officers were authorised to use their motor cars for official travelling. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the total mileage was 14,500, and the cost £535. When one remembers that the Treasury has the oversight on the spending for the whole Government machine, then I think that one may say that that helps to put this matter into proper perspective. My hon. Friend purported…

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.