HC Deb 21 February 1977 vol 926 cc1042-50

'The Minister shall at least once in each five-year period carry out a staff inspection and evaluation of the use of manpower by the Authority, after which a resumé of his report will be published in the Authority's Annual Report.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

Our purpose in moving this new clause stems from a number of debates that we had on the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee. On Second Reading I referred to the feeling of the traders and tenants in the market that there was a degree of overstaffing in the Authority. Nothing that has been presented to me since then and no argument that I have heard has convinced me one way or the other about this, but I am in no position either to confirm or refute the deeply held feelings of some of the traders and tenants in the market.

At Second Reading I also referred to a report that had been presented to the Minister by the Staff Inspection and Evaluation Branch of the Civil Service Department which carried out an inspection of the staffing of the Authority at that time. We understood that the report was in the hands of the Minister. At Second Reading I asked the Minister to tell us what was in the report and whether it contained any evidence which confirmed or refuted the views of the tenants and traders. I said then, and I still think, that it is important that the good will and co-operation of the tenants and traders should be maintained in the new Covent Garden Market so that the best use can be made of the facilities there. At the end of the Second Reading we received no response from the Parliamentary Secretary. We did not make a fuss at the time because we knew that we could raise the matter again in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) raised the matter of the report once more in Committee on 27th January. He suggested that there were too many people in the staffing department of the Authority who dealt with such things as car passes to get into the market. Again the Parliamentary Secretary did not respond. Only when the matter was pressed again later in Committee did he refer to the report. He said: We will consider what additional information may be made available to hon. Members on the basis of that report.' When I asked the Minister if we could see a resumé of the report, he said: We shall certainly consider that and let the hon. Gentleman know."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 27th January, 1977, c. 126.] I fear that it has taken the Government an unconscionable amount of time to let us know. We had not had any response to that undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary and in view of that we felt that the only way we could raise the matter again was to table a new clause to the Bill. We felt that it was such an important issue because in the delicate state of negotiations between the Minister, the Marketing Authority and those who have to do business there, it was absolutely crucial that there should be the best understanding between the three parties so that good will could prevail in these matters. That is why we put down this new clause insisting that once every five years a staff inspection should be carried out by the Civil Service Department, after which a resumé of the report should be published in the next annual report of the Authority.

Of course we understand that we should have only a resumé because reports of this sort mention names, and it would be wrong to mention individuals either in a resumé or in the annual report of the Authority.

Since we put this new clause down things have begun to happen. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I spoke on Thursday about this matter. He wrote to me the following day and he has given me an Answer to a Written Question, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), which will appear in Hansard tomorrow. Both the letter and the Written Answer provide a resumé of the last report. We have made some progress, but I received the letter from the Minister only at 1.30 p.m. today and the Written Answer at 3.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his handling of this matter. I am sorry that I was unable to give him the information earlier. It was available earlier, but it was not possible for me to clear it until I came back from Brussels. I regret that I could not have given it to him a few days earlier, because had I done so he might not have tabled the new clause in this form.

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful to the Minister. I know how busy his life must be as he is in a Ministry in which two out of three Ministers have to go regularly to Brussels. It is not as though he makes a practice of this sort of thing. In fact he is extremely good at dealing with these matters.

We have been able to see the way in which the financial affairs of the Authority are run. Early on in the resumé we are told that the Minister is satisfied that the report provides him with the assurance that he sought—namely, that there was no significant overmanning or general inefficiency in the Authority's operations.

I notice that the report shows that from the beginning of the time when the Civil Service Department moved into the market there already had been a reduction in staff numbers from 110 to 105. I am not sure whether that reduction was connected with some of the criticism made in the report, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us just what reduction was achieved.

In relation to investigations into administrative and market staff and work that is contracted out, there are criticisms in two sectors. On the administrative staff the report contains the following criticism: The report suggests revisions to the organisational structure for the running of the market under established conditions which could reduce administrative costs. Secondly, on market staff the report says: One or two areas where levels of manning could be more closely examined were indicated and my officials are examining these with the Authority. Is the reduction between the beginning of the review and the current situation anything to do with those criticisms? It would be helpful to know to what extent those criticisms are likely to give rise to further reductions in staff.

4.0 p.m.

The Opposition are in a somewhat difficult position. We tabled the clause because we had not seen what we had been promised. Now that we have seen the resumé, we shall hear what the Minister says before we decide whether to press the matter to a vote.

Perhaps in reply to the debate the Minister will say how determined his Department is to see that the staff reductions foreshadowed in the Civil Service Report will take place.

Another extremely important question is how often the Minister expects the Civil Service Department to go into Covent Garden market to make these inquiries. He may well say that in any case these investigations will take place every five years. If that is the situation, the clause may be quite unnecessary. Since the Minister has been able to publish a resumé of this report, will he undertake to publish resumés of future Civil Service Department reports on the Market?

I am anxious to do all I can to try to improve the relationships between those who work in the market and the Authority. It grieves me to see the extent to which relations are not as good as they should be. I shall have something more to say on that matter on Third Reading. We must do all we can to improve those relationships, and we tabled this clause with that end in view.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I have been most enthusiastic in pursuing this hare involving possible overmanning. This enthusiasm stemmed from representations made to me by market traders and from visits I have made to the market in recent weeks. As recently as last week various allegations were repeated.

Therefore, we are most grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in sending us an early copy of the lengthy Written Answer, which indicates that some of the anxieties felt by market traders have substance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that it grieved him that relationships between the Authority and market traders were not good. It behoves us all to take every step we can to improve the situation. There are other amendments which have not been selected but which underline the common theme of anxiety expressed to hon. Members by market traders. If hon. Members had not visited the market in the early morning to see for themselves what goes on and to meet traders these matters would never have been raised in Committee or today. Therefore, although we are grateful for the Minister's courtesy and his forthcoming attitude, we are concerned that if we had not probed these matters these items would never have seen the light of day.

I hope that the Minister will reply favourably to my hon. Friend's suggestion involving at least a five-yearly staff review. We hope that the Market Authority will be under constant scrutiny so that we may have an up-to-date picture to give to our constituents. I believe that the Civil Service Department and the departmental staff have begun to do a good job of scrutiny, and I believe that we need to maintain that pressure.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)

There are two points which I should like to mention arising from the comments of my hon. Friends. We have a clear duty as guardians of the public purse to ensure that public money is spent in the most efficient way in terms of resources—and manpower is a most important aspect. The morale of the traders is also an important consideration. We must ensure that the market works, and the only way we shall achieve that aim in the long term is by ensuring that those who work in the market are happy and carry out their work productively.

There is a specific problem that must be closely examined. The latest accounts show a deficit of £250,000 on current account, with administrative expenses at about the same level. The problem is that the traders have no direct representation in the committees that run the Authority. They have certain discursive committees in which they can state their views, but they have no direct involvement in running the market.

The Government have given themselves power to insist that the rents and rates are raised to more economic levels, but again traders have no direct involvement in that process. They have no say in how the administrative costs may be reduced. The traders are merely asked to foot the bill. I appreciate that somebody if not the taxpayer, has to foot the bill, and I accept that the Government need the powers contained in this Bill in that respect. But the onus is on the Government to say what they intend to do to give more direct powers to the traders in running the Market and to ensure that any lingering doubts about overmanning and administrative efficiency are removed. At least we should do this for the traders and ensure that they are not landed with a lot of unnecessary administrative or manpower costs.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government intend to deal with overmanning and what they plan to do to ensure that the traders are more directly involved.

Mr. Strang

The question of the Authority's management, including staffing, has been fairly fully discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. Hon. Members have reasonably sought information in addition to that which has been given. I recognise that there may have not been the need for this debate had we been able to provide the information sought by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in Committee.

As I have said in the Written Answer to be published in tomorrow's Hansard, the overall conclusion of the Civil Service Department report was that there is no overmanning or general inefficiency in the Authority's operations. It is true that certain proposals on staffing and organisation, for further consideration by the Authority, were made in the report, but this was to be expected since the Authority has not yet fully completed the task of settling the market complex on its new site.

The hon. Member for Westmorland rightly drew attention to the reduction in staff which has been achieved. Offhand I cannot give him the precise details of the posts involved. My understanding is that the reduction has been achieved by and large as a result of the market settling in. Some of the additional staff who were involved in the process of moving and establishing the market are now no longer necessary. If the hon. Member would like details of the posts, I should be happy to supply them.

Hon. Members will appreciate that we are talking about a management matter which is the responsibility of the Authority. It would be wrong to anticipate the loss of certain posts at this stage. It would not be appropriate to discuss the details of individual posts on the Floor of the House. That would be unfair to the staff concerned. There are grounds for believing that further economies can be made. I am convinced that we can have full confidence in the Authority's ability to secure all possible economies in manpower.

The new clause seeks to provide for a similar investigation exercise to be held at least once every five years. It would be wrong to suggest that any body other than the Authority should have responsibility for achieving reductions in staffing. To write into legislation the provision that there should be a regular investigation would be to undermine the position of the Authority. Further, to write in this five-yearly requirement would impose an unnecessary rigidity upon the structure. I can meet the desires of the hon. Gentleman by saying that we certainly do not rule out the possibility of a further look at any aspect of the Authority's operations, either by the CSD or some other appropriate agency. Obviously, it would have to be a body reasonably independent of the Authority and all the interests involved.

I can give the hon. Member for Westmorland the further assurance that if there is ever a need for such an inquiry as is suggested in the new clause and it is carried out, we shall see that the results are published in at least the form in which we have provided the information today. If we can go further than that, we shall do so. That is an undertaking that we shall have to honour without any further reminder. 4.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) raised a point concerning the involvement of the traders in decisions affecting the running of the market. We have been considering this in consultation with the traders and the Authority. A proposal has been made. The hon. Member for Westmorland has said that he wishes to deal with these matters on Third Reading so I shall not reply at any great length at this point. We are not unsympathetic to the suggestion that has been put forward. We have held meetings with the traders and the Chairman of the Authority to discuss this point among others.

Conservative Members were primarily concerned through this new clause to produce the information which, I regret to say, they did not receive until the end of last week. I hope that they will agree with me that the provisions of the clause would impose unnecessary rigidity. I assure hon. Members that we shall not hesitate to invite the CSD to investigate these operations if there is the slightest suggestion that that would be helpful. We shall make sure that the House is fully informed on all these matters.

Mr. Jopling

When we tabled this new clause we suffered a certain rush to the head of enthusiasm for its provisions, partly because of our slight irritation that we had not seen a resumé of the last report. On reflection, perhaps it would be wise to withdraw the clause. The Minister has a good point when he says that it might impose too great a degree of rigidity. He might also have been tempted to say that if this five-yearly provision were to apply to the Authority, others might argue that it should apply to other bodies. That might have led to a doubling in size of the CSD review body, which is not something we should like to see.

The Minister referred to the possibility of holding another investigation in the future. The House might expect that there would be a greater need for an investigation of this sort while there is such a large amount of suspended debt hanging over the Authority. I was glad to hear that the Department will not hesitate to carry out another review if it feels it necessary. I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that if another review were held he would keep the House informed. That is a fairly easy promise to give because it may well be that at the time of the next review this Government will not have responsibility for such matters. The Minister may well be making a burden for someone else.

In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to