HL Deb 26 November 1981 vol 425 cc852-3

3.9 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people are employed in the Office of Manpower Economics; what plans have been made to reduce this; and what is the estimated cost of the office in the current year.

The Ministry of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, the current staff is 44. This follows a reduction of one-third from a total of 65 as a result of the abolition of the Standing Commission on Pay Comparability and an efficiency review of the Office of Manpower Economics. No further reductions are planned. The cost this financial year will be about £857,000.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does his statement that no further reductions are planned exclude the possibility of nonetheless making them? Does my noble friend recall that it was this organisation which last year was responsible for the extremely expensive error in calculation which resulted in greatly increased public expenditure on teachers' salaries?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I was aware of the latter fact. The fact that no more reductions are planned does not of course mean that they are excluded; it means merely that they are not planned.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that, in view of the very large number of review bodies, ad hoc committees of inquiry, and so on which the Government set up to act as honest brokers between themselves and spheres of administration for which they have responsibility, the advice that they receive would be incoherent and chaotic unless all those bodies shared a common secretariat?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I think that that is largely so, and I would add that the Office of Manpower Economics is totally independent.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures that he gave us mean that each of the 44 persons serving in the office is costing nearly £20,000 a year? If it is not possible to make economies in numbers, would it be possible at least to make economies in the seniority of people serving in the office, in order that the taxpayer should not have to meet a cost which will probably amount to £1 million next year?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, simple mental arithmetics are not always the best guides to efficiency. All I would tell my noble friend is that the estimated costs for 1981–82 are in fact 34 per cent. below last year's in money terms, which presumably is more than in real terms.