§ Q6. Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct all members of the Government that any legislation introduced by them must in future include in the explanatory memorandum an estimate of the effect of such legislation upon the size of the Civil Service.
§ The Prime MinisterThese questions are always taken into account by Her Majesty's Government before recommending new legislation to the House, but I will certainly consider whether anything can be done on the lines of what the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. OnslowBut would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this might make some of his legislation look a good deal less attractive, and that if, for example, the country knew the true bureaucratic costs of the Transport Bill, he would probably never win any of the by-elections which are pending, even if he does eventually get around to holding them?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is entitled to his supplementary question. I was responding to what I thought was the serious point of his question in the spirit in which I thought that it was put. I was wrong. From the moment that we took office, there was an instruction, following the line of one of my predecessors, Mr. Attlee, whose practices I knew, that no proposals were to be put for Government consideration which did not 1141 state not only the cost but also the manpower involved. This is what I have tried to do. I will consider what I think the hon. Gentleman meant seriously—whether, in recommending new legislation, something on these lines should be carried out.
§ Mr. RipponWould the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the need to give not merely the increase in the numbers of civil servants but the increase in the numbers of local government employees, bearing in mind that these have risen by over a quarter of a million in the last three years?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, and a great deal more than that in the time when the right hon. and learned Member was a Minister. There has been a very big increase in local government staffs consistently since 1960, which I make to be about eight years. This again is a fair point—perhaps a good Second Reading point for a Minister to make, and not necessarily in an Explanatory Memorandum— but, equally, on the other side, we must set out the savings in manpower in many areas of legislation by avoiding duplication—and for example, in the case of the Land Commission, the tremendous saving in manpower by land speculators.