PERSONAL COLUMN

Robert Odams RIP

ROBIN PAGE

Robert Odams' was the pen-name used by Robin Page, then an official of the Sup- plementary Benefits Commission, for his articles in the SPECTATOR last year on 'The Welfare Rackets'.

In the village of Fenstanton, Hunting- donshire, stands a tombstone bearing the name of one Robert Odams, a brewer, who lived between 1802 and 1879. He happens to be a long departed relative of mine, and although a busy road passes quite close to the churchyard he remains untroubled and undisturbed. Despite his departure, there does seem to be a link between his lifetime activities as a brewer and the more recent ac- tivities of 'Robert Odams', who has also departed but whose going was far from natural. The brewer used fermented hops and barley in his trade, but the effects have long since ceased to influence the residents of Fenstanton and their sobriety is not in doubt. The latter Robert Odams used to brew words, however, and these appear to be fermenting still. Indeed the reactions from the Department of Health and Social Security which sampled the brew say much for the contents, and the resulting behaviour has appeared far from sober.

It was rumoured locally that the Depart- ment was in such a state of internal panic and turmoil over the articles by 'Robert Odams' that Fenstanton should take precau- tions against attempted body snatching or a possible trial as experienced by Oliver Cromwell after he had departed this life. Fortunately for all concerned the Depart- ment stumbled upon the fact that I had writ- ten the wicked articles under that nom de plume and the villagers and churchyard of Fenstanton remain at peace as a result. My crime was thought to be so heinous that I have been dismissed for my trouble, and the Department too can settle down again into its undisturbed rut, at least until the next general election, when its numerous great achievements will be proclaimed from the roof tops.

At this juncture I had better make it clear to any colleagues who may read this piece that my identity came to light in an un-

fortunate and accidental way (unconnected with the SPECTATOR) and the discovery does

not reflect the efficiency of headquarters. Those who have been 'leaking' to the press about the alarming state of affairs within the Department may continue to do so and need not be intimidated by my fate, for it is most unlikely that they will be discovered by a repetition of my misfortune.

I imagine it is obvious why my articles were published by the SPECTATOR. The public were repeatedly given one picture of the Department's functions and efficiency, by the Department; and often this picture just did not correspond to the one seen by members of staff who had no political fac- tions to placate or prospects of £3,000-plus salaries to aim for. Since the first article ap- peared in September, the official picture seems to have been somewhat repainted or at least renovated. As recently as 20 October stories of widescale abuse were referred to as 'rumour mongering'; yet on 15 December the complement of 'specialists' whose sole

purpose is the prevention of abuse was in- creased by 100 (still not enough, inciden- tally) and the 'small' amount of abuse was described as 'disturbing'. This is a strange way of dealing with 'rumour mongering' and a problem which was supposedly well in hand.

Other important issues stem from all this, however, for it becomes clear that some sort of machinery should be established to make unnecessary the birth and premature death of 'Robert Odams'. A civil servant should never find himself in the position where he has to choose between a good career with all that goes with it, and the risk of losing his job and possible prosecution to boot, merely because it seems that the electorate are being taken for a ride, with the public interest ignored in favour of political platforms. If a government department is being run inefficiently then it is clear that the facts should not be swept under the carpet but brought out into the open and the situation put right. I would be the first to agree that a state of affairs in which every Torn, Dick and Robert could run to the press with any petty grievance could not, and should not, be tolerated; but neither can the present situa- tion.

In my own case I was asked at one stage why I had not made my criticisms either to my superiors or to the Society of Civil Servants. The simple answer is that both have been aware of the situation for as long as I have, and both have from time to time said the same things with absolutely no effect. The state of affairs may technically be an official secret but it is also an open one and certainly public knowledge. I have spoken to senior officials in exactly the same terms as I have written and have heard them comment in similar fashion. Indeed, when 'Robert Odams' first raised his ugly pen, two senior executive officers in North London were the first to be suspected. The Society, too, has known of the situation for some time; but I suppose one of their dilemmas has been, 'is there a political motive in- volved? and if so should the union become involved in politics?' The journal for the Society, Civil Service Opinion, has from time to time published letters from disgruntled members of the Department showing the ex- tent of discontent. There is also within the Department a reluctance to approach unions or staff welfare officers, as there is a strong suspicion that they are merely 'wheels within wheels'.

This, then, is the problem facing many civil servants: a choice between staff rules and conscience, between promotion and pos- sible dismissal. Within the Department of Health and Social Security this problem and choice has been a very real one for many

members of staff. Mr Crossman and Mr En- nals may like to think that 'Robert Odams' was just an isolated misfit who foolishly chose to consider principle during office hours instead of staff rules, but this is not so. Since being informed of my dismissal I have had numerous letters and telephone calls from members of the Department, and the following extract from one of them is typical of the sentiments expressed:

`So many of us feel that we ought to have done something to disclose the true state of affairs about the waste of taxpayers' money. I feel sure that you will understand when I say that I might lose nearly thirty years' pension—in view of what I have said about my pension I should be grateful if you would not mention or disclose my name'.

Fortunately I have lost orrly five years' worth of gratuity and pension, but by the time most civil servants have taken on normal family responsibilities and are receiv- ing good salaries they find themselves trap- ped, and any stepping out of line could result in financial disaster The civil service has its staff 'over a barrel'. Civil service training makes members of staff fit for one thing—becoming civil servants; and there is no doubt that after several years' service the average civil servant would find it difficult to get another, equal job. Another point to bear in mind is that gratuity and superannuation are not paid as of right, but are only paid on retirement if the officer concerned has been a good boy. It is based on the same principle as a parent bribing a child with a packet of sticky sweets. The giver gets his hands dirty but the results are very satisfactory. If a dissenting voice is ever raised, other pressures can be applied; there are many capable civil servants with many years of service languishing in the lower grades, hav- ing learned the hard way what these methods are.

It is arguable that on entry into the civil service the conditions of service are made perfectly clear before the Official Secrets Act and staff rules are signed. This is true, up to a point, for I signed, at least I think I did, with my eyes open. What was not made clear when I joined was that the interior of the Department in no way reflected the fresh, clean external image as flaunted daily before us in leaflets, on posters and in political broadcasts. If I had known the true state of the Department I would probably never have joined it and I would certainly not have signed the staff rules.

The time, then, has surely come when an independent body should be set up to deal with complaints of inefficiency and malad- ministration made by civil servants against their departments. Quite apart from the Department of Health and Social Security, I understand that there is considerable cause for complaint in the Inland Revenue and even in such unlikely places as the Ministry of Agriculture. It is important to emphasise that the body must be completely in- dependent, ensuring that there will be no vindictive recriminations against those who make complaints. The antiquated question of the Official Secrets Act could be reviewed at the same time. The whole idea of sup- plementary benefits being an official secret is absurd. It is, of course, true that I have been guilty of disloyalty. 'You owe loyalty to the Department that pays your salary', I have been told. Apparently loyalty to the taxpayer counts for nothing.