HC Deb 08 December 1967 vol 755 cc1931-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Ioan L. Evans).

4.8 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins (Consett)

The matter I am raising is the treatment of graduate applicants for posts in industry and education. Applicants for these posts are regularly subjected to long delays in receiving replies to their applications and

one's work for one day and then one would work better for the other six. The slave owner could make his slaves last longer by giving them one day a week less work.

I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and I have much pleasure in supporting it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 18.

Division No. 17.] AYES [4.00 p.m.
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.) Sharples, Richard
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Kerr, Russell (Feitham) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lee, John (Reading) Watkins, David (Consett)
Dickens, James Lubbock, Eric Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Ellis, John Mikardo, Ian Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
English, Michael Oakes, Gordon Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ennals, David Pavitt, Laurence
Fraser, John (Norwood) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Goodhart, Philip Ramsdon, Rt. Hn. James Mr. Hugh Jenkins and Mr. John Parker.
Hamling, William Rankin, John
NOES
Bell, Ronald Currie, G. B. H. Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &Crom'ty)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Maclennan, Robert
Black, Sir Cyril Harris, Reader (Heston) MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Body, Richard Hooson, Emlyn Russell, Sir Ronald
Booth, Albert Kenyan, Clifford
Braine, Bernard Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Clark, Henry Macdonald, A. H. Mr. Charles Doughty and Mr. John Cordle.

by contrast applications for overseas posts of comparable standing are almost invariably dealt with promptly. This has repercussions, as I shall seek to show, on the deployment of graduates in the development areas and more particularly it has repercussions which aggravate what I understand is now officially known as the brain drain.

To illustrate, I shall quote the case of one of my constituents, Mr. David Sample, of Stanley, Co. Durham. He has given me his full personal authority to quote his experiences.

I want to make it very clear that I am not indulging in any sort of special pleading on his behalf. I am quoting his experiences solely in order to illustrate the point that I am making, and have no reason to believe that his experiences are isolated. They are, I believe, fairly widely shared. Mr. Sample is 23 years of age and a Master of Science of Sheffield University.

Originally he was anxious to work on research in industry, especially in his native North-East. This is a development area with very special problems, immediate and long-term, in respect of economic stability and growth. I and many of my hon. Friends have put down Questions on many occasions drawing attention to the importance of research and development in the North-East. It is in this important setting that we have to look at my constituent's experiences in applying for research posts in industry in the North-East.

In the late summer of 1966, after qualifying, he applied to a number of firms and arranged six interviews. He was successful at his first interview, and consequently cancelled the others, informing those firms of what had happened. Five days before he was due to begin work, he received a telephone call from the firm informing him that because of its poor trade figures it was laying off men and could not honour its agreement to employ him.

I do not intend to name this firm, because it is a well-known company with a good reputation and I do not seek to bring any adverse publicity upon it. As a result of its action, it made a highly-qualified man unemployed and, not surprisingly, turned him somewhat against industry as an outlet for his talents. I understand that a report on management selection was published only yesterday which states that this sort of thing is one of the major reasons for the brain drain. I have not yet read the report but from what I have seen of it in reports, it confirms the experience of my constituent.

Consequently, my constituent took several temporary teaching posts and found that teaching was, to him, interesting and stimulating. In order to use his qualifications to the maximum advantage, he went on to seek posts in technical colleges, polytechnic colleges and universities. I want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which the applications were treated. He applied to four polytechnic colleges. In one case he heard nothing further. In the second he was rejected after waiting six weeks for a reply, and the other two only replied after a lapse of nine weeks.

I want to quote the case of Durham University, in his native North-East. Acting with what I would ironically describe as lightning speed, Durham University replied after four weeks, which was the quickest reply he had received from any application. He applied for a post at the College of Education (Technical) at Huddersfield, and, although his application was acknowledged on 5th August of this year, his rejection letter was received on 10th November—three months later than the date when the application was lodged.

My constituent sought information from Huddersfield about the reason for the delay and was told that the director was taking his holidays and that interviews could not be held until he returned. The director is as entitled as anyone to holidays, but, as applications had been invited when it was known that this delay would occur, this is a matter of concern.

My constituent applied for a post in an international college at Zurich and told me that he did not expect to get it because it would almost certainly go to someone with more teaching experience. However, within 48 hours, and although he had not put his telephone number on the application, he received a call from Zurich, was interviewed over the telephone and informed that the short-listed applicants would be flown to Switzerland in one week for the final interviews. Only 12 days later he was informed that he had been unsuccessful. Thus, in a short period the whole thing was finalised.

In a letter to me, he said: My overseas applications have, without exception, been answered immediately and with interest. My applications in Britain have been answered in a lethargic and disinterested manner both by industrial and educational establishments. I received another letter from Mr. Sample this morning, saying that he has been offered, and intends to accept, a good physics post at the Jamaica College, in Kingston. The brain drain has claimed another British scientist.

I emphasise again that I am not pleading an individual case, but have quoted it only as an example of this situation. I am much more concerned with the principles involved and the lessons to be drawn. Industry needs to examine its methods of appointments, particularly in the development areas, where they are of greatest significance. In places like the North-East, if the future is to be secured and long-term economic stability established, the attraction of highly qualified personnel is as essential as jobs for displaced miners which feature so prominently in our discussions about development areas, particularly those with declining coalfields.

Establishments of further education need drastically to review their methods of dealing with applicants. In the case which I quoted I have no reason, as I said, to suppose that it is an isolated one—the methods compare appallingly with those of overseas establishments. Thus, it is not surprising that talented and qualified men and women should be lost to the country in the manner which has been debated in the House and the country with such intensity recently.

I am, of course, aware that industrial appointments are outside the scope of my hon. Friend's Department and I do not expect her to comment in detail upon these matters, but I am aware of her experience at the Ministry of Labour and I am sure that she shares my concern that industry should always aim for the first-rate in administration, particularly in dealing with applicants for appointments.

I am also aware that the Department of Education and Science has no direct control over educational appointments of the sort to which I have been referring, but I hope that the very fact that the debate has taken place will cause some influence to be exerted, indirectly if not directly, on governing bodies to put their house in order. The plain fact is that a country fighting for its economic survival as this country is cannot afford lethargy and lack of interest of this sort.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for raising a case which has much wider implications than even the particular position of Mr. Sample without doubt has. I shall deal briefly with the personal position of Mr. Sample and then look at one or two of the wider implications.

Our understanding is that Mr. Sample had to wait a very long time for replies from several technical colleges, notably the Huddersfield College of Education (Technical). The post that he was seeking was one for the development of new methods of science teaching, for which it might have been expected that a good deal of teaching experience would be a useful requirement, a qualification which Mr. Sample did not have. But it does not explain or justify the very long delay in informing him.

I have learnt since the debate began that the Director of the Huddersfield College of Education (Technical) was not on holiday but was on business overseas, which makes a slight difference. Nevertheless, I echo what my hon. Friend said in suggesting that institutions—universities, colleges of education and colleges of further education—should consider carefully whether they can speed up the procedure under which interviewing takes place.

Generally speaking, at present a number of applicants are short-listed, but those who are not are not then informed that their application has been rejected. This does not happen until the final appointment has been made. The reason normally given for this is that it may prove that the short list is not viable because people withdraw and one may have to move on to other applicants. But it is worth reflecting whether if there is long delay between the advertisements and the final appointment it would not be wiser to indicate to most applicants that there is little chance of their being likely to get the job.

With regard to Mr. Sample's experience with industry, there was one firm that he applied to, of six which had offered him interviews, which subsequently let him down. I think that one would repeat what my hon. Friend indicated, that it is unfortunate when anybody who is promised a job is let down at short notice. But the firm may well have been considering that it must put its existing employees first and new recruits second.

Nevertheless, industry, like educational institutions, should very carefully consider its recruitment policies and whether it can allow people to know as quickly as possible what their position is. The normal courtesies of the interview procedure, the normal indications of what information is available, and the quickest possible decision are all highly important if we are to keep qualified manpower in this country and get the right people into the right jobs.

Incidentally, there is reason to believe that people with the qualifications of Mr. Sample are still very much wanted in industry and teaching, and the Swann Report shortly to be published will indicate that there is still a very substantial need for technologists and scientific manpower in both of these fields.

It is worth mentioning, as a qualification, that the subject in which Mr. Sample qualified, solid state physics, a crucial subject for the microelectronics industry, is not very widely spread in the North-East, where there are not many establishments directly concerned with it. Therefore, one has to consider, as it were, a special individual element in this case which might not apply in other cases.

With regard to teaching, my hon. Friend will, I think, agree that the record is rather better in the case of Mr. Sample. When h e was not able to obtain the job which he was originally offered in industry, he sought a post in schools. He was quickly placed by the Durham local education authority in a school where he taught for a term and subsequently in another school where he taught for a second term. The reason he was not subsequently placed was that he informed the local education authority that he would he seeking to take a diploma in education. Since he informed the authority of this in November, 1966, the authority supposed that he would not be interested in a further teaching post after July, 1967.

As soon as we learned that Mr. Sample might be interested in a teaching post, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote immediately to my hon. Friend indicating two vacant posts, one in mathematics and one in physics and chemistry, both of which would be suitable for a man of Mr. Sample's qualifications.

I have mentioned one or two of the wider considerations concerning education institutions and the efforts which we hope they will make—as my hon. Friend has said, we do not have direct control—to try to speed up the interview procedure and to make the position clear to qualified young people as quickly as possible.

Generally speaking, a man with a background such as Mr. Sample's would be very welcome in technical colleges, but I should again add a qualification. It would be understandable if a governing body felt that a man with industrial experience might be preferred to Mr. Sample. The reason for this is that both technical colleges and colleges of further education are increasingly directing their attention towards links with industry and towards a practical application for their courses. Consequently, and, I believe, rightly, they are bound to weigh industrial experience fairly heavily in the balance. I do not think that my hon. Friend would consider this not to be the right way to go about things.

That is one reason why the Department encourages sandwich courses and courses which have direct industrial experience incorporated in the educational experience, because it gives to a young man of the age of Mr. Sample—23 or 24—the background which is necessary if he is to make a success with the kinds of day-release and sandwich students who attend institutions of technical further education. It might, therefore, have been wise for Mr. Sample, had he stayed in this country to get industrial background so that he would have knowledge of both those aspects.

With regard to industry my hon. Friend will be interested to know that following the Report of the Bosworth Group of the Committee on Manpower Resources, there is now an increasing effort to try to get structured courses for graduates in industry. We know from the triennial survey which reported in 1965 that a substantial proportion of all graduates—it indicated 24,000 qualified scientists and engineers—were being employed in industry as technicians. That means that about one-tenth of the stock of qualified manpower were being employed in posts below their capabilities in so far as these were associated with their qualifications.

It is, therefore, true, as Mr. Sample points out, that it is not unusual to come across a young man or woman who, having graduated, then feels that he or she is not being used as fully as they might be in industry. This attempt to get structured experience for the graduate—or, we hope, in future for the man holding a qualification from a polytechnic—will he a way of encouraging such young men and women to stay in industry in this country and to give to it their full capabilities—that is to say, their full creative capacity.

That answers the main points raised by my hon. Friend. I finish by repeating that it was indicated to Mr. Sample that there were two vacancies which he would be likely to get, because there were not many applications for them and they were suitable for him, both being in school teaching. He was subsequently on the professional and executive register of the Ministry of Labour, who offered to find vacancies for which he might be suitable. I gather, as my hon. Friend has said, that Mr. Sample has subsequently taken up a job outside this country but one which, I think it is fair to say, the Government would regard as being not quite a normal part of the brain drain because he is taking up a post in a developing country closely associated with the United Kingdom.

I do not think that any of this excuses certain inefficiencies, and a certain lack of courtesy in the way in which Mr. Sample was treated. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that this is not the way to keep qualified young men and women in this country. I therefore repeat that I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for having aired this question.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.