§ 2.42 p.m.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now made a revised estimate of the staffing requirements of Oftel and of its annual cost.
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield)My Lords, because of the additional duties falling on the director general both under the Bill as now enacted and under the licence, provision has been made for the number of staff to increase in the course of the year from an initial figure of 50 to 84. Expenditure this year is now estimated at £2,530,000 and the future annual cost at £3 million to £3½ million.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that during the passage of the Bill through this House, and, indeed, after many amendments had been made to it, he was taxed with the whole question of Oftel expenditure and stoutly maintained the contents of the financial memorandum of the Bill, which of course put the figure for staff at 50? Does that not indicate that the Bill's financial provisions and its planning were ill thought-out prior to its presentation to the House? How does the noble Lord explain the increased cost to the taxpayer, particularly in the light of the fact that the new director general, in an interview that he gave to the Sunday Times on 27th May, said that this number of extra staff would make the total staff rather on the smallish side? Will the noble Lord give a further undertaking that the expense of this quango will he kept under very close review?
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I am happy to acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord raised this matter on a number of occasions during our proceedings on the Bill. Equally I made it clear that if the provision proved to be inadequate we would ensure that additional resources were made available. For example, if I may quote from column 1340, on 6th February I said:
I can assure Members of the Committee that we shall keep matters under review, and if in the light of the developments an increase in complement is called for it will be considered very sympathetically".On another occasion I said:If experience shows that the director cannot carry out his duties with 50 people, the staffing level will be reconsidered".— [Official Report, 6/2/84; col 1352.]910 I said specifically that it would be sympathetically reconsidered. In this instance the noble Lord is right in having raised the matter and I am correct in having carried out the undertaking that I gave. This is an unusual but happy coincidence of views.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that during the passage of the Bill many of us on these Benches also pointed out that, if the regulatory authority was to be truly effective, it would need more people and more money? We are delighted that the Government and the new director general have thought fit to try to strengthen it. May I add that one hopes that perhaps the calibre of the people will be exceptionally good so that they can carry out their very difficult and extensive duties in keeping a monopoly which has 96 per cent. of the business under control and avoiding cross-subsidisation, as laid down in the new licence published this morning.
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the support that he gives me. Perhaps I might respond by saying that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur also made it clear that if additional resources were required they would be made available.