Covent Garden Market Authority (Hansard, 21 February 1977)

§ Mr. Strang

This report contains many references to the work of named individuals and it would be inappropriate to give more than a very general summary.

I should emphasise that the study was not intended to be a comprehensive investigation of all the activities of the authority but, in accordance with the terms of reference, was concerned primarily with the costs of directly employed manpower. My right hon. Friend's purpose in calling for the study was to satisfy himself that there was no significant over-manning or general inefficiency in the authority's operations. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the report provides him with the assurance he sought. As was to be expected from any investigation of this sort, the report made a number of proposals on staffing and organisation for further consideration by the authority. The authority is giving serious attention to all of them.

The report deals with the activities of the authority under three main heads. First, in regard to administration staff, the report points out that the transition to the new site required a great deal of detailed planning and posed many problems. The organisation and execution of the move with the minimum of disturbance to traders and buyers reflected great credit on the members and officers of the authority and their organisational structure. The report suggests revisions to the organisational structure for the running of the market under established conditions which could reduce administrative costs. The author- 416W ity will consider these in greater detail when tasks arising from the move and the financial reconstruction have been completed and such established conditions are nearer at hand.

Secondly, the report deals with market staff employed by the authority. Because of the singular nature of some of these posts it was not possible in all cases to find precise functional Civil Service equivalents but appropriate levels of responsibility were identifiable in many cases and in these the levels of remuneration seemed roughly appropriate. One or two areas where levels of manning could be more closely examined were indicated and my officials are examining these with the Authority.

Thirdly, in respect of work contracted out, the report contained no firm recommendations for change. It compared relative advantages and disadvantages of contract and directly employed labour which could serve as a basis of a more precise costings than was possible in the time and with the resources immediately available.

At the beginning of the CSD review the authority employed 41 staff in its administration and 69 market staff—a total of 110.

Staff numbers—including two part-time employees—reported to me by the authority are currently as follows:

Administrative, technical and clerical staff	37
Market staff (Beadles, Entry Control Clerks and Flower Market Carrying-in Staff, Commissionaires etc.)	68
Total	105

The authority is keeping its staffing under constant review in the light of changing requirements. It has made certain staff reductions, as indicated above, and is examining the possibility of achieving further economies. My officials are being kept closely informed. The authority will, I know, welcome suggestions by the market traders and users for economies in the provisions of services.