Mr. John Baker (Overtime) (Hansard, 2 December 1987)

§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

This Adjournment debate concerns a simple constituency case that, rather like Topsy, has grown and grown.

This case is also a splendid example of democracy at work. A constituent may have a grievance against a local health authority, but is stonewalled by that authority. He can take that matter one stage further by approaching his Member of Parliament, who will have the case put before the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman refuses to take up the case, he can, through his Member of Parliament, put his case to the Minister. If the Minister declines to take up the matter and refers it all the way back to the health authority, there is still the forum of the House in which a constituent's claim, right or wrong, can be heard rather than brushed away by one side or another.

My constituent, Mr. John Baker, worked for four and a half years for the Hillingdon health authority as a medical technician No. 3. He left that authority on II October 1985. He came to me in November 1986 and claimed that he had been paid only 27.1 per cent. out of a total of 324.4 hours of overtime owing. He had put in that claim before leaving. He told me that he was paid the 27.1 per cent. with no explanation and that that was the end of the matter.

Mr. Baker came to my surgery on 15 November and, on 17 November, I wrote to Hillingdon health authority. I received a letter back from the chairman, Mr. David Swarbrick, on 12 December 1986.

No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament, have had experience of the "try-on merchants" who come along to our surgeries. They put their case and think that one letter from their Member of Parliament will ensure that all their problems will disappear, even though they know that they have no right to what they are asking for.

I received a reply from David Swarbrick that effectively said that Mr. Baker did not deserve and was not entitled to the money. I communicated that fact to Mr. Baker. He vehemently rejected those comments and drew my attention to a couple of points. One of those was that, when he put in his claim to the salaries and wages department, it was accompanied by a letter signed by his departmental head, Dr. Thompson, the chief physicist, that said: I write to confirm that payment for 324.4 hours is due to Mr. Baker. That letter did not appear to carry any weight with David Swarbrick, who wrote back to say that the claim had been investigated and checked by the internal audit department. However, if I was looking for a shining example of efficiency and accountancy control, the Health Service would not come top of my list.

My constituent then wrote directly to Dr. Thompson regarding the memo from David Swarbrick and he received a reply that I regard as a triumph in balancing truth and expediency. He got a letter back which used phrases such as My advice to you, which may be painful, is to accept the ex-gratia payment offered by the health authority". The letter went on to say: 1079 It is unfortunately true that we cannot independently confirm the time clock figures in detail and I am sure that everybody acted in good faith". Here was the management of the health authority telling an employee that it was terribly sorry but the wage control system was inadequate, so it would not pay him, that he, the employee, was to be penalised for the failure of management.

I was somewhat puzzled by this. I looked at the work carried out by this department and by Dr. Thompson and found that it is responsible for calibrating the scanners and for making sure that all the X-ray machines are in order. If this man is to be dismissed by the internal audit department of the Hillingdon health authority as being 72.9 per cent. wrong, I shudder to think what happens when the other work of the department is being done. I hope that the scanners are not calibrated with such a margin of error they will not do a very good job.

I decided that, if I were not going to get any further with the health authority, I would go to the Ombudsman, because there were one or two details which I thought could be regarded as maladministration; but that was dismissed and it was decided that my constituent could not be taken on. So I wrote to my hon. Friend in the Department. I will not go through the series of letters that went not only to her but originally, before the election, to the noble Lady the Baroness Trumpington. But in the end it was all referred back to the Hillingdon health authority, the very body that had made no progress. So I decided to delve into this matter just a little more closely myself.

I found that this 27.1 per cent. payment had been made tax-free. I wondered what special arrangements the Hillingdon health authority had to pay money tax-free. Then I discovered that this payment had been made not only to Mr. Baker but also to three other employees who had continued to work for the authority. One of these gentlemen received his payment tax-free. I wondered whether it would be possible to have some of my parliamentary salary paid tax-free, because that would be of immense benefit to me.

I am not an extrovert Member of Parliament. I am not one of those who go in for the photo calls and the flashy publicity, but I have got my teeth into this item. I really would welcome an answer rather than having the run-around that I have been getting for nearly a year. So I decided to look into the matter even more closely, and I found from another of the three gentlemen whom I mentioned a little earlier — who, according to the chairman of the health authority, Mr. Swarbrick, are satisfied with the arrangement — that he was absolutely convinced that the hours that they had put in for were absolutely correct. I am told that the system was changed on 1 January 1986, but I have discovered that they are still using the same time clocks; however, instead of allowing the hours to build up and up over the year, payment is made each week.

Further investigation showed that it has been the practice in the past for workers to have time off if they were owed money on overtime, if they left for other employment. I have three examples of this having been done in the past. In one instance — I am now going back to 1975 — I discovered that when moneys were owing, they were paid off at just over 50 per cent.— tax-free.

1080 But, of course, income tax then stood at 33 per cent. in the pound and the difference was not so great between that and the total payment. I understand that some of them had a little time off in lieu to make up the balance.

So there appears to have been a known system, of which my constituent was a part, that allowed hours to accumulate in large numbers and then be wiped off in tax-free payments and/or time off in lieu. I must emphasise that an employee — not the management — worked in a health authority where it appeared to be standard working practice to allow all that to happen and then to be settled in the way that I have described. The House can appreciate my constituent's surprise when he found that the rules that operated for the hours that he had legitimately clocked up did not apply in his case.

It was the known working practice in that hospital for employers to have time off in lieu. My constituent's claim was endorsed by his manager. His claim was verified by a colleague, and there has been no explanation.

I should like from my hon. Friend some answer to the problem. I am sorry that it has been presented so late at night after a series of important but rather wasteful and time-consuming Divisions. I welcome what my hon. Friend has to say in reply, but if she has no particular answer to the question tonight and would like to write to me later, that would be adequate.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on winning the ballot and raising the question of Mr. Baker's dispute with Hillingdon health authority. He has shown, once again, the concern for his constituents that he has shown on many occasions in the House.

Problems appear to have been happening with overtime recording in the medical physics department of Mount Vernon hospital as far back as 10 years ago. Mr. Baker was not then involved. He did not join the department until 1981. But one employee managed to build a backlog of unclaimed, unsupported overtime between 1976 and 1978, which caused some concern.

As a result, in 1978, a flexitime system for the laboratory was brought in to enable staff to take time off in lieu. The object of the exercise, as least in part, was to reduce the cost of overtime to the health authority. One condition introduced was that overtime payments should be claimed promptly and no backlog accumulated. For some time, overtime claims were submitted regularly by all technicians and no backlog of official verifiable overtime was allowed to accumulate.

In October 1981, as my hon. Friend says, Mr. Baker joined the health authority and started working in the laboratory. He left in October 1985. Month by month, as required, he submitted an overtime claim, which was paid promptly and over the four years he had been paid approximately £650, plus call-in payments, and presumably he had taken time off in lieu as well, as was agreed.

During the four years, he submitted no other claims for overtime payments, was not in dispute with his employer, did not operate any grievance procedure, and all his claims were fully met, without dispute and on time. In other words, during that time he appeared to have no complaints whatever about his employment. Then he gave in his notice and, at the same time, submitted a claim for four 1081 years' overtime over and above that already paid, for the sum of £1,674. At about the same time, three other colleagues in the same laboratory made similar claims of roughly the same magnitude as Mr. Baker's.

The claim was based on time clock readings. The clocks were activated by a key insert system. The key is turned when the operative comes in, a light goes on and from that point it starts to accumulate time. The key is specific to that particular clock and it is held by one person only— that particular operative. The clocks go on accumulating hours if no one turns them off — for example, if someone forgets when they go home for lunch, or, indeed, for the weekend. As far as I know, they cannot be corrected or turned back. The operative himself has a key for his own clock and only he can operate it.

Clearly, that is not the height of technical achievement in timekeeping and I was disappointed to hear this afternoon that they are still in use. I have conveyed to the health authority my views on whether that is appropriate. Nor is it a system that auditors would back for payments to the operatives concerned. It was never intended for such use. I am told that the machines were intended merely to show which technicians were on duty. The readings were kept fortnightly or weekly but were used for not very clear purposes. The recording system for overtime, which was the basis for payment, was a book or timesheet, which was verified regularly by the supervisor. That is the standard system, and it is still in use. It has given rise to no disputes since Mr. Baker left and it has satisfied the internal auditor. It accords with overtime systems that are in use outside the NHS.

It further appears that Mr. Baker's machine was faulty on more than one occasion and was giving false readings. As overtime was paid from the timesheets, it did not appear to local management to matter very much. It appears that Mr. Baker was not concerned either. He did not submit claims for extra hours at any time in the four years except when he was due to leave.

I note the points that are made in the correspondence —I have a large file on it—and those that have been made tonight about the confirmation given by the head of department, Dr. Thompson, to Mr. Baker's claim. Dr. Thompson neither sought nor obtained authorisation for the acknowledgement that he made of the claim, which was made up to four years after the event. Dr. Thompson had no means of verifying the claim, and the clock was not intended as a record of payment. It was never used in that way, and if it had been the district health authority would have exercised its obligations to ensure that the clock was calibrated and functioned properly, was used accurately and was taken into the payment system regularly. In the two years since the claim was raised, the internal audit and management have ensured that the staff know how to record and claim overtime. It is now being claimed one month in arrears and no retrospective unclaimed overtime has been allowed to accumulate.

The district health authority acknowledges some fault. The system itself—the clock, the muddle over what was overtime and all the rest of it—was faulty. The head of department gave the staff concerned a promise in writing that the claim should be met—he should not have done so, but he did.

Although the district health authority disputed the claim, it was on that basis that it was willing to meet the claimants half way. It discussed the matter with the central DHSS audit staff and then made payments to the four 1082 claimants of about 50 per cent of the value of the claims. Three of the staff accepted the claims in full settlement. Mr. Baker took his cheque and cashed it in October 1986,, but has since pressed for more money. I understand that he has consulted a solicitor as well as my hon. Friend, but no legal claim has been entered into court or received by the district health authority. I have in front of me Mr. Baker's letter of 4 November 1986, in which he sets out the details of his claim. He states that he feels that he has 324 hours of overtime owed to him over and above the claims that he made during the four years which were met.

Mr. Baker claims an hourly overtime rate of £5.16, and that is how he arrives at his calculation of £1,674. However, if the claim was met for 1981, it would be at £3.63 an hour, not £5.16. It would be £3.84 for 1982, £4.09 for 1983 and £4.98 for 1984. The claim, based on overtime rates in operation, would be £1,367, not £1,674. Mr. Baker has accepted already an ex gratia payment of £454.46, which excluded the taxation, superannuation and national insurance deductions that would have been payable. That is the normal way in which an ex gratia payment might be made. The sum is equivalent to a gross payment of about £700, which is slightly more than the corrected amount that is being claimed. That is the explanation of the figures that have been arrived at. Other employees have accepted and settled on the same basis as that which I have outlined and the health authority is not prepared to meet the claim for the sum that Mr. Baker considers he is due.

There are open to him various procedures. My hon. Friend will know that Mr. Baker cannot activate the local grievance procedure, because he is no longer an employee of the health authority. The Health Service Commissioner rejected Mr. Baker's bid because an extension of the Health Service Commissioner's remit was not appropriate. Health Service personnel and contractual matters are not within his purview. The General Whitley Council requires a health authority to operate a grievance procedure, but would not become directly involved. The Whitley Council for Professional and Technical Staff B, which negotiates pay and conditions for medical physics technicians, would not be involved in a local dispute of this kind.

It is not for us to advise Mr. Baker on how to go forward. He knows how to decide, no doubt with the advice of my hon. Friend, exactly what steps he wishes to take. For example, he can discuss the matter with his union —if he has one —or he can decide on whether it is a matter on which he feels he would like to seek further legal advice.

I regret to say that Ministers have no part whatever to play in this. The relationship is between the employee and the employer, which is the health authority, not Ministers. The basis of this is the National Health Service Act 1977, schedule 5(10) which says: an authority … may employ … such officers as it may determine at such remuneration and on such conditions of service as it may determine;". Since Mr. Baker's letter of 4 November 1986, to which I have referred, there has been extensive correspondence between my hon. Friend and the authority, the Ombudsman and Ministers. I have also discussed the matter with Hillingdon district health authority officials, and I have read the entire large file on this case. The health authority has made from public funds—which are not in excessive supply—a payment which in the circumstances I consider reasonable.

1083 My hon. Friend's constituent persists in a claim that can only be described as inaccurate, unsupported and unrealistic. My hon. Friend has shown in this debate the outstanding characteristics for which his constituents elected him in June, but I cannot help him in the way he 1084 wishes. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept what I say in the spirit in which it is offered and that he will advise his constituent accordingly.