HC Deb 19 April 1977 vol 930 cc161-70

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

10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

Every week since the beginning of February, without exception, I have been endeavouring to obtain an Adjournment debate on the subject that I wish to raise tonight. I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to do so. In the intervening period I had hoped that my request for an Adjournment debate might be overcome by the course of events, namely, an acceptance of the justice of the pay claim of the chief Police Officers of the Ministry of Defence. By their oath of service the police undertake never to put their own selfish interests before the public good, but in consequence of the reasonable quid pro quo the Government should be expected to keep faith with the police in matters of pay, status and recognition without need of recourse to unco-operative measures.

What I have said applies to the police generally but even more so to any specific or small group such as the 10 Ministry of Defence chief police officers who are the subject of the debate. I emphasise that they are only 10 in number. The Government have not kept faith with them, and the more that I have read the correspondence that has passed between them and the Government and the records of meetings that have occurred the angrier and the more full of revulsion I have become at the treatment that has been meted out to these men.

The dispute originates with the 1975 police pay settlement, announced in June 1975, to take effect from 1st September 1975, but it stems with equal if not greater importance, from a letter dated 15th May 1974 from the Civil Service Department to the Chairman of the Ministry of Defence Chief Police Officers' Association. That letter established the pay link for chief police officers for the future. In particular, it stated: For the future we propose to express the pay link for the chief officers as a vertical one with the federated ranks with the Ministry of Defence police. I emphasise the word "vertical". The letter continued: The aim will be to maintain the relativities created by the announced settlement of the pay for both federated ranks and chief officers. That is clear and explicit.

Following the 1975 settlement the increase for chief police officers would have seemed a matter of course. The Chief Police Officers' Association, on 16th June 1975—again, the date is important—requested formally the application of the new rates as from 1st September 1975. The Civil Service Department did not reply to the letter, so a reminder was sent on 10th July. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence will listen, as his Department is concerned not least. The Department did not reply to a third letter of 30th July. The Department did not reply to any of the three letters until 14th August when, to the astonishment of the Chief Police Officers' Association, and its anger, it was informed that the only increase allowed would be £6 a week maximum, under the terms of the White Paper entitled "The Attack on Inflation", Command 6151.

This approach by the Civil Service Department was immediately contested by the chief police officers. It was on the basis of paragraph 8 of the White Paper, which states that settlements may also be implemented for groups which, before the date of publication of this White Paper, have reached agreements for annual settlement dates not later than 1st September, provided that they have had no principal increase under the existing TUC guidelines within the last 12 months. Any normal person, let alone any fair person, would understand and accept immediately that the chief police officers satisfied the requirement of that paragraph. They had an agreement, and it was effective not later than 1st September. The claim had been made prior to 11th July. Perhaps the Minister will recall the date of 16th June, which was the date of the first letter written to his Department. The White Paper was published on 11th July.

The Government are not normal; neither are they fair. Thus, the Civil Service Department interpretation was different from that of the chief police officers. At worst, the Department's interpretation demonstrated a blatant desire to persecute the chief police officers for some unknown reason. At best, it was splitting the smallest of hairs. But the Government are the slave masters. So far they have shown no mercy and no common decency, in spite of the stream of letters from the Chief Police Officers' Association to various Government Departments and separate meetings between representatives of the chief police officers and the Minister of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) was present at a meeting, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). The Minister of State will recall better than I what took place, because I received only a report of the meeting. He will remember that the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, given the fact that he was once in charge of the Department of Employment, was of considerable relevance to the course of the discussion because he had had to deal with not dissimilar problems.

Apart from the meeting with the Minister of State the chief police officers have had meetings with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and with the Lord Privy Seal. I do not think it unfair to say that the reports of these meetings—reports that I have seen—reflect ministerial sympathy. At each meeting the officers have had a fair hearing, but nothing has happened. This must mean either that Ministers are receiving advice with which they disagree but lack the courage of their convictions to overrule that advice or, putting it bluntly, that they are being two-faced.

What are the consequences? First, there is the question of total pay and relativities. It must be remembered that federated ranks of the Ministry of Defence police received the full 1975 settlement. It may be recalled that federated ranks up to the rank of thief superintendent total about 5,000 men. Since 1st September 1975 the Chief Police Officers' Association members have been receiving less pay than their juniors two ranks below. It is rather as though the Secretary of State were receiving less pay than the Under-Secretaries in his Department. I have a suspicion that he might grumble if he did.

Even if the White Paper £6 had been accepted, the chief police officers would now be on a par only with federated ranks two grades below. There is, therefore, first the question of total pay and relativities. The second consequence, which is of even greater and more immediate concern, is that three of the 10 chief police officers retire in the next six months, one, I am told, on 30th April, one in June and one on 30th September. Under present arrangements all three will come out with totally inadequate pensions based on long out-of-date pay scales. They and their dependants will be saddled with this situation for life unless a retrospective settlement is achieved very swiftly.

However, it has been clear so far that the Government care not a jot. Only yesterday there was yet another meeting between the Chairman of the Chief Police Officers' Association, accompanied by the secretary, and the Lord Privy Seal, accompanied by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department and the Minister of State for Defence. To judge by the report that I have heard, the Minister of State for Defence made a fool of himself. It was perfectly clear that he had not done his homework. He thought that the salaries being discussed were in excess of £8,500. They are not, and the Secretary of State knows that as well as I do.

In the light of the incompetence of the Minister of State for Defence, of which I hope the Secretary of State will take note, I advise the Minister of State, Civil Service Department not to try to defend him. It would be unwise for him to do so, and it would not help the situation one bit. I am told that at the meeting the Minister of State, Civil Service Department merely looked embarrassed, as well he might. The Lord Privy Seal turned down flat the representations of the chief police officers, including consideration of pensions.

As grounds for turning down the continuing requests, he said that it would be damaging to announce a 36.8 per cent. pay increase. No regard was paid to the fact that the pay requests—if I may put them that way—had no relevance, in reality, to 1977, but every relevance to what happened two years ago, in 1975.

The Lord Privy Seal said that the situation was very different today from what it had been in 1975. Too right it is different, and whose fault is that? He can say that again. We are concerned that the social contract, which was meant to solve all our problems, has done a fat lot of good so far, both in particular and in general.

The weakness of the Government's case is demonstrated by their undertaking that any chief superintendent who is promoted will have his pay protected so that it remains in excess of his current superiors'. I believe that that is a very important point. It is an admission of weakness of the Government's own case—an admission of the abject and craven stand of this Government over chief police officers' pay.

Finally, perhaps the Minister would re-read the replies that he has given to parliamentary Questions from a number of hon. Gentlemen. I see that the Minister of State for Defence has come into the Chamber—he would wait until the very last moment before coming in. Also, I hope that the Minister will look at the replies that other Ministers have given to my hon. Friends who have in their constituencies members of the Chief Police Officers' Association. He may care to recall the comments that he has made about a swift conclusion to this matter in the letters that he has written to hon. Members. He may care to decide whether he is proud of those replies.

Secondly, perhaps the Government will ask themselves and their consciences whether they would have acted as they have done if, instead of 10 chief police officers, they had been dealing with a similar situation and conditions coupled with the name of Jack Jones and 1 million trade unionists. Perhaps the Minister of State would consider that matter.

Against that background, the Minister may tonight have one more chance of redeeming himself. Will he now do so?

10.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris)

I am grateful for the opportunity of replying to the formidable and lucid case presented by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) on this matter. I appreciate that this is an important and difficult subject. As he rightly said, it concerns a small body of men, amounting to 10 in number, but the matter is no less important on that account. As the Chief Police Officers' Association, which represents them, has been assured by Ministers to whom it has presented its case, the Government have considered the matter, have reconsidered it and are still reconsidering aspects of the case with sympathy and concern.

The hon. Gentleman has on many occasions contributed to debates in this House in a modest and worthwhile manner. I felt that in the course of his contribution this evening he made one or two disparaging comments—not only about ministerial colleagues, who are able to defend themselves, but about the issue itself. I believe that on reflection he will agree that those comments were, to say the least, injudicious. It would not have made any difference to the Government's or the Minister's stance on this issue whatever union represented these officers.

As for my parliamentary replies to other hon. Members on this issue and the reference that the hon. Member made to my use of the word "swift" in relation to these negotiations, I have been concerned to elicit swift conclusions from the outset. But in the nature of things on such a difficult and important issue, time inevitably has been involved.

The problem is not an easy one, as I hope to show in the course of my contribution. The Government and Ministers have been endeavouring to find a reasonable solution to the anomalies which have arisen. It is taking time, which is regrettable, but, unfortunately, unavoidable. I must stress that this is not a question of the Government's lack of interest in or understanding of the personal position of the officers themselves or of the management problems that arise.

The hon. Gentleman referred to one matter in particular relating to the promotion situation that inevitably will arise in September. Equally, we are mindful of the personal position of the officers themselves.

I suggest that it has not been merely a question of any failure to negotiate. The simple point is that the Government have to decide what can be done consistently with national pay policy. The difficulty is not in defining the problem but in finding solutions which are consistent with the Government's pay policy.

Let me start by setting out the facts. The chief police officers are a group on their own for the purpose of pay determination. The agreed method for determining their pay is through a vertical pay relationship with the chief superintendent in the ranks below. Specifically, this provides that the chief officers receive at all levels the same percentage increase as may be awarded to the chief superintendent at the maximum of that pay scale. The pay of these lower ranks is determined separately through a horizontal pay relationship which has had the effect of maintaining identity of pay scales with the Home Office local police forces rank for rank. The settlement date for both groups is 1st September.

Thus, when the pay scales for the Home Offices forces are adjusted, two separate arrangements come into operation for the Ministry of Defence police force. The lower ranks receive a consequential pay adjustment by reason of their horizontal pay link. The chief officers receive their increase by reason of their internal vertical pay link with the lower ranks.

But for the publication of the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" on 11th July 1975, this sequence of events would have resulted in the payment of an increase of 36 per cent. from 1st September to all chief police officers of the Ministry—that is to say, pay increases ranging from about £2,000 a year at the maximum for the assistant chief constable to about £3,250 a year at the maximum for the chief constable.

These adjustments could not be brought into effect before 1st September 1975. Moreover, they were dependent upon the settlement for the lower ranks and could not be agreed before the publication of the White Paper on 11th July 1975. They therefore automatically fell to be considered within its terms. It has been said that as the claim was made by the Chief Police Officers' Association in mid-June it should have been settled before then. I think the House will agree, however, that it would have been wrong for the Government, with their prior knowledge of the contents of the White Paper, deliberately to advance events in order to avoid problems that might otherwise arise for part of the public service.

The claim had therefore to be considered against the provisions of the White Paper. The crucial issue in this context has been whether it could be dealt with under the transitional provisions. If not, no more than £6 a week within an upper limit of £8,500 could be allowed.

Much of the time that the Government have spent over this case, and for which we are now being criticised, has been spent on genuine attempts to find a solution that could be applied without serious risk to national pay policy. The application of the pay policy limits not only creates problems for the officers themselves but gives rise to acute management difficulties. It would not help simply to seek to resolve these at serious risk of repercussions to the national policy. That we have taken so long to seek a solution even though in the end we have not been successful is a measure of the efforts we have made. I cannot accept that the present situation has arisen by default or that the time taken, regrettable though it is, has been unnecessary.

I should remind the House of the key points of the agreed policy set out in the White Paper. As part of the effort to meet the grave economic and industrial situation, a flat-rate approach to pay increases was accepted. An important element of that approach—embodied in the flat-rate concept and the £8,500 cut-off—was that the heaviest burden should be borne by those best able to make sacrifices, the higher-paid. It also avoided the complication of separate provisions for particular groups through traditional pay links or comparability claims. One inevitable result was a compression of pay differentials, and hon. Members will have noticed recently the pressures that have built up as a result.

These considerations are pertinent to the way that the Government have applied the transitional provisions. They have been strictly applied so that the only groups with settlement dates not later than 1st September 1975 which have been allowed increases are those which made agreements as to amount—and that is a significant point—before 11th July 1975 or which were linked to such groups with pay scales within the scales of the groups to which they were linked. That is to say that the transitional provisions have not been allowed to cover groups in a way that would preserve existing vertical pay relationships simply by reason of their pay linkage with lower-paid groups. To allow the chief police officers their increase would do just that and would introduce an interpretation of the transitional provisions that is not only inconsistent with the intention of the policy but that would place at risk one of its main objectives. I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on this point a little longer.

Mr. Morrison

Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the point that I made about the letters from the association? The first letter of 16th June and the second letter of 10th July were both written before the publication of the White Paper. The third letter, sent because there was no earlier reply, was not written until after the White Paper appeared.

Do not those facts seem to give the lie to what the Minister is saying?

Mr. Morris

I accept that the letters were written before the publication of the White Paper, but the implications of that White Paper would inevitably influence the Government's reaction to the claim. In order to allow the claim, the Government would have to depart from the way in which the transitional provisions have been applied.

There would be risks involved in that. In principle, the chief police officers' case is not unique. Other cases, which may differ in degree of anomaly or on technicalities, still have similar general merits. Moreover, if we are seen to be prepared to make one type of concession to overcome anomalies, why not others? Also, the chief superintendent rank in the civil police received a much higher percentage increase than the equivalent ranks above. If, under a pay policy concession, this is reflected upwards into the higher ranks of the Ministry of Defence force, they will receive increases of 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. above those that were granted to similar ranks in the civil police outside.

This is an important consideration that the hon. Gentleman and others who have understandably expressed concern should bear in mind. The Government's judgment is that to depart from the way the policy has been applied so as to permit pay increases ranging from around £2,000 to around £3,250 a year to a relatively highly paid group would create an unacceptable risk to the policy. I recognise that this decision provokes an understandable reaction from the officers. The Lord Privy Seal, the Minister of State, Department of Defence and I met the general secretary of the association and his deputy yesterday. I appreciate their disappointment, but I can assure the House that we have gone to considerable trouble to satisfy ourselves that there is not, and could not have been, a solution consistent with the objects of the policy, through the use of the transitional provisions.

Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the effect of applying the pay policy limits in this case is to create very severe anomalies. These officers have not received pay adjustments in 1975 of the kind received by similar ranks in other forces whose settlement dates were before the issue of the White Paper. Within their own force, the assistant chief constables receive less than the pay rate of a subordinate rank. Differentials for others have been severely eroded. This has consequences for management and for recruitment and promotion. It also creates problems for those who have to retire on pension.

My ministerial colleagues and I are concerned about these aspects. We want to take the earliest opportunity to ease the most acute anomalies. Hon. Members will be aware—

The Question having been proposed at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.