HC Deb 01 July 1977 vol 934 cc841-54

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

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise today the question of the Government's review of Ordnance Survey maps. All those who use such maps were pleased when, on 6th May, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he was to set up a review of the workings of the Ordnance Survey. They were perhaps a little disappointed in that, although he issued a Press notice which took up over a page, only one-third of it was concerned with the review while two-thirds were concerned to tell us that, while the review was going on, there were to be substantial increases in the price of maps.

I wish that we had been given much more information about the review and the study and that we could have been told that for the time being at least there would be no increase in the price of maps.

I hope that this afternoon the Minister will tell us a little more about the proposed study. I understand that its function is to consider what the Ordnance Survey should be doing in the 1980s. I welcome that, and I know that groups such as the Ramblers Association and other map users will welcome it.

Is the study to be an internal departmental study, or is it to be more independent? Who will chair it? What is the relationship between the study and the Map Users' Conference, which at present makes suggestions and gives advice to the Ordnance Survey? Who will be asked to submit views to the study? How will they submit their views? Will it be by written or oral evidence? When will these pieces of evidence be required? Is it intended that the study will be published when it is completed? I hope that my hon. Friend is able to give us that information about the study. Clearly, map users are interested to know how far the review will go. If my hon. Friend cannot tell us today, I hope he will be able very soon to publish details of the review.

I must protest as it seems that in some ways the setting up of the committee was a smokescreen, or a thick mist, to cover the Government's proposals for major increases in charges for Ordnance Survey maps. It seems ridiculous to set up a study, part of which must be to consider who should pay for the Ordnance Survey, whether it should be self-financing from the sale of maps, or whether it should continue to have a substantial Exchequer grant, and at the same time to say that, notwithstanding the review, there will be some savage price increases.

Fairly soon after the Second World War, as a young Scout, I bought my first Ordnance Survey map. I think that it cost me either 2s. 3d. or the old half-crown. It was of the Llangollen area of North Wales. The cost of the map at that time was about the cost of a night's stay in YHA accommodation.

That map now costs £1.15, just about 10 times as much. It is now considerably dearer than the cost of one night's YHA accommodation. If the Government's proposed increases go ahead, the price of that map could increase to about £1.80, or even £2. As it has been metricated, it covers a rather smaller area. Many people feel that it does not quite meet the old standards of the 1-in. map.

If there have been startling increases in the cost of maps since the Second World War, the most startling has been in the past few years. Many who are concerned with maps very much welcomed the start in 1972 and 1973 of the publication of outdoor leisure maps. During that period I bought one such map of the Three Peaks. It cost me 95p in 1974. That same map today costs £1.50. I understand that the outdoor leisure maps of Snowdonia and the Conway Valley, which the Ordnance Survey said it would publish in May, then in June, and which presumably will arrive in July, have now been priced at £1.95. Between 1974 and today those maps have doubled in price. That is a startling increase.

Would it not have been better for the study to have considered costs? Perhaps we should be asking about the efficiency of the Ordnance Survey. Surely that is a relevant issue. I am told that in the 1960s the Ordnance Survey employed one administrator for about 13 production staff. I believe that there is now one administrator for every six production staff. Surely that is a trend that the review should consider.

In the 1960s the Ordnance Survey had to cope with three head offices. It is now in one purpose-built building. Surely that has reduced administrative costs to some extent.

The major point of the pre-emptive price increase is that it reverses a fundamental policy without the Minister making the matter clear to the House. It was established in 1866, and it even survived through the financial crisis of 1931, that the recording of information for maps should be a national service. Pos- sibly it was done originally for military purposes. More recently it has been done for good government purposes. If we are to continue to have good government, the surveying should continue to be paid for by Exchequer grants. The sale of maps should merely cover the cost of the printing, publication and distribution of the maps. Map sales should never have to cover the cost of the survey work.

In the past, 80 per cent. of the finance for the Ordnance Survey came from the Exchequer and 20 per cent. came from the sale of maps. In recent years 65 per cent. of it has come from the Exchequer and 35 per cent. of it has come from the sale of maps. It appears from the recent Press release that the Minister wishes 45 per cent. of the finance to come from the sale of maps and 55 per cent. to come from the Exchequer grant.

We have no evidence that the increases that the Minister suggests will bring the Ordnance Survey any extra money. It was made clear in the annual report of the Ordnance Survey last year that there had been considerable customer resistance to price increases and that there had been fewer sales than had been hoped for. If map prices increase by the amounts suggested, the Ordnance Survey might not get back as much money as it might otherwise have done. It would be sad if increased prices resulted in far fewer maps being sold. Has the Minister any evidence to show that the market will stand these price increases?

The point about which I wish to press the Minister most strongly is the extent to which he has considered the safety angle. I suspect that if the maps became dearer, more money might result, but there might be many more accidents in mountainous areas. I have been trying for some time to ascertain the cost of major mountain rescues, and I am always assured that it is difficult to work out the cost because every rescue is different. I accept that.

I realise that if a rescue is necessary because someone has fallen the map can hardly be blamed for it. Rescues which involve searches are often those in which people have gone into mountainous areas possibly ill-equipped, often without maps, often with the wrong map, or because they have been unable to use the map and have got lost, and much public expenditure is incurred through people having to look for them.

I wonder whether the Minister has any information about the cost of mountain rescues. I suspect that major searches in, say, Snowdonia cost well over £1,000 to such Government Departments as the Ministry of Defence when RAF helicopters are involved. They involve the civil police in the area in substanial costs and voluntary organisations subscribe large amounts of money. If the Minister can give me some idea of the cost, I shall be grateful.

The Minister should balance considerations of this sort against the extra revenue that the Government might obtain from the sale of maps. I suspect that if maps become dearer, more people will not know how to use them, and more people will go out with the wrong map or without a map at all, and we are therefore likely to see an increase in the sorts of rescues that are necessary when people get lost, possibly in bad weather conditions.

The next subject about which I am concerned is planning. I believe that maps are essential for planning, and I am very concerned that the price has increased, particularly for some of the large-scale maps. The latest figure I have is that the price for an up-to-date map is up to £9. This will discourage people from using maps for planning purposes. My hon. Friend the Minister should look at this matter very carefully, especially since the Department is very keen to encourage public participation in planning.

The main argument that I put to my hon. Friend is that, although we welcome the review, we should have much preferred it to include the question of cost instead of finding that the costs have been increased before the review takes place. I should like the review to look at pricing and particularly the use of microfilm and the way in which some groups of people seem to be able to make copies from Ordnance Survey maps and produce fairly cheaply large-scale maps which are then passed out to the general public through planning departments. Yet in other areas maps are very expensive, and if people go to an official Ordnance Survey outlet, they find the maps very expensive indeed.

I should like the review to look at not only how quickly the 1:25,000 survey can be completed but how the sheets can be published. The question of mapping standards should also be examined.

One of the most disappointing matters is that, when maps went metric and there was a little more space on them, foot-paths were not marked more clearly. The Ramblers Association is very disturbed that, having made representations to the Map Users' Conference asking for a clearer red marking and asking that footpaths should be shown more clearly, in the recent second edition of metric maps this improvement has not taken place. I am still concerned that it was decided not to continue to differentiate in forestry areas between coniferous and deciduous forest.

I also wonder whether we have the scales right following metrication. Were the 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 the right general purpose scales, or might 1:40,000 and 1:20,000 have been far more useful? If map production by the Ordnance Survey can now be carried out with computers, which I welcome, consideration might be given to slightly different scales which might be more use to the walker and the motorist.

There are many other questions that I should like the review to examine, but I have already spoken too long for an Adjournment debate. I beg my hon. Friend to give us more information about his review and tell us that, for the time being at least, he is freeezing all further price increases in the interests of outdoor pursuits, safety and the interest of good government.

3.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)

I am sure that many people will have welcomed my hon. Friend's initiation of this debate today. The services and products provided by the Ordnance Survey constitute a subject in which he has taken a great deal of interest and his views are, I know, representative of many map users, in particular those who use maps for the better enjoyment of the country-side. Personally, I share the interest of my hon. Friend, which he has obviously demonstrated in his speech today. My hon. Friend and I have visited the Survey's offices at Southampton and, as I know from my own recent visit, this is a most valuable and enjoyable experience.

Map-making is highly skilled activity calling for a great variety of professional abilities, and we all rightly place a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of the maps which the Ordnance Survey produce. However, the production of maps for sale is only one of the many facets of the Survey's activities and there are many public bodies and professions which rely very heavily on its services.

It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Barnett

I take just one example. The Survey has been very closely involved in the precise definition of the location of off-shore oil platforms in the North Sea. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that these activities can involve costs which have to be recovered by charges either to the user or to the taxpayer. It is the establishment of the proper balance between these two which is the fundamental issue behind my right hon. Friend's statement of 6th May, to which my hon. Friend referred.

I want to help my hon. Friend and the House by setting the framework of the intended study of the range and level of the Survey's activities and the basis on which costs should be incurred and charges made. As my hon. Friend may know, there was concern some 10 or 11 years ago that there was a serious lack of up-to-date survey information at large scales—25-in. and 50-in. to the mile— and there was concern that the Ordnance Survey, with the resources then available, was not within sight of achieving its updating programme. The lack of these essential tools for planning development was seriously impeding the plans of local authorities, Government Departments, nationalised industries and other interests concerned. It was accordingly announced in February 1966 that the staff of the Ordnance Survey would be increased by about 20 per cent. over a period of 10 years to enable the Ordnance Survey to complete the resurvey of the whole coun- try by 1980. This has been referred to as the "1980 plan".

The aims of the 1980 plan were to complete in successive stages the large-scale survey of the major built-up areas, the smaller towns and finally the remainder of the country where there was less development. Thereafter the staff of the Survey would be allowed to fall back to about the 1966 level and the main emphasis of the Survey's work would then be redirected to the maintenance of existing mapping with only a relatively limited amount of new basic survey as required by new development and other circumstances.

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Ordnance Survey expects to complete its tasks in accordance with the timetable set. This means that within a matter of only two or three years the Survey will need to readjust itself to a new work programme. This does not mean that its future will be static. There will be a continuing need to adjust to and take advantage of new techniques of surveying, recording of data and reproduction so as to improve productivity and to contain costs. There will be a need to seek ways of making products and services fully attuned to the needs of users. There will be new developments in the exploitation of digital topographic data for the benefit of a wide range of purposes. Altogether, the future for the Survey could be as interesting and as purposeful as the past has been.

With this background, my right hon. Friend took the view that it would not be too early to set in hand a wide ranging study of the Ordnance Survey on a scale that has not been possible since the Davidson Committee in the 1930s. My hon. Friend will have noted the very wide framework proposed for the new study and the particular stress which has been placed on consultation with users so that full account can be taken of the different needs of the various categories of map user, including the general public, professional and commercial users' public authorities and Government Departments.

I am afraid that no decisions have yet been taken on the form the study will take nor on the constitution of any panel to undertake the work. My right hon. Friend and I will welcome suggestions to which we shall give serious consideration. I can stress that both my Department and the Ordnance Survey itself attach a great deal of importance to full consultation with user interests. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with that assurance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Is the Minister at least prepared to say when the study will be set up, and when he will be in a position to make an announcement about the form that it will take?

Mr. Barnett

I am afraid that I am not even able to tell my hon. Friend that. I hope that in addition to the interesting remarks that he has made in this debate, he will write to us with suggestions or will request those with whom he is in touch on this subject to do so.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Ordnance Survey already organises or participates in a wide range of consultative meetings, among the principal of which is an annual Map User's Conference covering a wide range of recreational and other interests. In addition, there are other specialised consultative bodies concerned with profesional and scientific interests, archaeology, local authorities and, by no means least, education. The new study will accordingly be to some extent a widening of the existing consultative machinery.

I also assure my hon. Friend that the study will be wide-ranging in the types of services and products of Ordnance Survey that it will cover and the posibilities presented by new techniques in the collection, presentation and utilisation of survey information. As I think my hon. Friend knows, there are interesting new developments under study for the use of digitised map data. Already about one-quarter of the total number of large scale maps are based on digitised data and these developments are being pressed ahead with the aim of making such data more easily retrievable in a suitable form for Government Departments, local authorities and public utilities.

Nor have the possibilities been overlooked in the field of small-scale maps and the techniques of using data derived from large-scale maps are being tried out experimentally in the case of the 1:25,000 scale maps in which my hon. Friend takes a particular interest. But I must make the point that this is a deve- lopment for the long-term future. The 1:25,000 maps are, as he knows, a series which presents special problems of balacing costs against possible revenue, and that is why my right hon. Friend's statement made particular reference to it. We shall certainly look forward to receiving any comments which he or other users wish to make on it.

I turn to the subject of interim pricing policy. My hon. Friend referred to the implications for the Ordnance Survey of the interim pricing policy aims set for them over the next five years in my right hon. Friend's statement of 6th May. I believe that my hon. Friend would like to see the implementation of these interim aims deferred until the results of the long-term study are available when the whole financing policy of the Survey could be examined in the light of its conclusions. In an ideal world exempt from price rises I could see some force in that point. But we live in the real world and, with the pressing current need to contain public expenditure, there can be no question of deferring increases in Ordnance Survey prices while its costs continue to mount. This would only have the effect of adding to the proportion of the Survey's costs borne by the taxpayer.

I wish now to elaborate this point and to set out in some detail the consequences of his proposal for the Survey's finances. In the financial year 1975–76 the proportion of the Ordance Survey's costs borne by the Exchequer came to about 71 per cent. In the following year, 1976–77, the Survey was able to benefit from price increases and the proportion of costs borne by the Exchequer then fell to about 67 per cent. In the current year, however, without prices increases, the proportion of costs to be met by the Exchequer is expected to fall back to nearly 71 per cent. In other words the Ordnance Survey's dependence on the Exchequer is increasing and, even though running hard, they are falling behind in the race.

We see no reason why the Ordnance Survey should be uniquely forbidden to meet rises in costs, let alone to improve its position. This is not to say that there is any absolutely correct balance between the costs respectively met by the user and by the taxpayer, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the targets set are relatively modest and will not prejudice the ultimate results of the long-term study.

I should, however, like to make two additional points: first, the implementation of the interim pricing policies will be spread over five years so that their impact will not be felt all at once; secondly, increased prices are only one arm of policies aimed at improving the ratio of revenue to costs. The other arm is a continuing drive towards the containment and reduction of costs and, as I know from a recent visit, the Ordnance Survey is making every effort in this direction with the goal of steadily improving productivity.

My hon. Friend raised an interesting point about the elasticity of demand for maps. I do not know about that but we shall have to proceed by experimentation. My evidence is certainly that maps are now regarded by most users as extremely valuable.

My hon. Friend also drew attention to the importance that accurate maps have for visitors to the countryside, who may stray from the proper paths, particularly in mountainous areas, and the importance of rights of way being marked on maps. He developed the theme that better and cheaper maps save money.

In this context he referred to the report of the Sandford Committee, particularly about Snowdonia. I am aware of the parts of that report that refer to the importance of making rights of way information more widely available in a cheap and convenient form. I accept the importance of my hon. Friend's point. Nevertheless, I do not think that one can pursue this argument too far, otherwise one would virtually be saying that every tourist who goes into a mountainous area should have a highly subsidised map to protect him from accidents. Somehow we must try to achieve the right element of balance between the cost of producing a map to the taxpayer and the price that the tourist should pay.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

What is the cost of some of these mountain rescues where there have to be search and rescue operations?

Mr. Barnett

That is not a matter for me, but I see the relevance of that in these circumstances. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that. however good and cheap maps may be, there will always be some people who will stray from the path, either because they have not bought a map, or because they do not know how to read one. My hon. Friend was right to raise that important issue and it is one of the many things that must be taken into account in trying to find the right balance.

I agree that the prices that were quoted by my hon. Friend are worrying when one considers the degree by which map prices have risen. However, one could quote the prices of other consumer products which have also risen considerably. My hon. Friend quoted prices ranging from £1.80 to £195. I can confirm that £1.95 is the price that is now charged for maps of Snowdonia.

I appreciate that this is appreciably higher than the price of earlier Outdoor Leisure Maps. The reason for this is that these maps do not constitute part of the normal map series. Each one is separately produced and its price is set with the aim that each should cover its costs. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that even at £1.95 these maps do not represent good value: they do.

I want to refer to the restrictions imposed by the Ordnance Survey on licences it grants for the copying of its material. Normally such licences preclude copying on behalf of others. The Ordnance Survey, however, permits a relaxation for private individuals submitting planning applications without the help of professional advice. That point was made by my hon. Friend. In such cases local authorities are authorised to provide copies of maps without applying a royalty charge, although they may, if they wish, make a small administrative charge to cover the cost of reproduction. I hope that this explanation gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend on the planning issues. He knows that I recognise their importance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

What worries me is the case of a person who has a tract of land behind his home, wants to get a map of it, and buys an Ordnance Survey map from one or other of the outlets selling them for anything from £5 to £9. In another case, a local planning authority, if it is helpful, may provide the map at a much lower charge.

Mr. Barnett

The general advice that I would give my hon. Friend or any of his constituents who are faced with such a situation is that, by and large, local authority planning departments are very helpful. One would expect an individual faced with such a situation to go to the planning department and consult it to see whether he was able to take advantage of the sort of provision that I have described in my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend will give that advice to any individual he comes across in that situation. Planning departments are there to help such individuals. I hope that no individual will spend large sums of money on a map that he could have obtained from his local authority.

I am sure that this has been a useful debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he has raised today. I am sorry that I am not in a position to tell him more about the study that we hope to undertake. I hope that he will keep in touch with me and put forward any suggestions that he may have about the shape and form of the study.

I assure him that I have taken note of the points that he raised and that many of these may be taken into account during the course of the long-term study that we shall undertake. I hope that we shall soon be able to make further announcements on the procedures involved and the arrangements for consultation with users' interests, which are of vital importance in making the study useful in terms of future efficiency of the Ordnance Survey and the work which it is doing. This work is important to a wide range of users who are dependent on its very excellent services.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Four o'clock.