§ 9. Mr. Corfieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps sufficiently to reduce the number of civil servants so as to absorb, without increased charge to the Exchequer, the recent increase in Civil Service pay.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydI am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's purpose. I am very ready to examine proposals for reducing the number of civil servants. I must however say that most suggestions pressed upon me by hon. Members on both sides of the House are likely to increase the number of civil servants required. My hon. and gallant Friend may be slightly consoled to know that apart from the Post Office there were 29,000 fewer civil servants on 1st April, 1962, than on 1st April, 1951.
§ Mr. CorfieldWhile partially encouraged by that reply, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not agree that, if the doctrine of comparability on which Civil Service pay is alleged to be based is sound, any redundant civil servant would have no difficulty whatever in finding an appointment elsewhere?
§ Mr. LloydI think that the point is that which I made to my hon. Friend. The House is constantly passing Measures which impose more duties and civil servants are required to carry out those duties. That is why the number remains so high.
§ Mr. RidsdaleCan the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the number of non-industrial civil servants has gone up by 37,000 since 1959, and the reason for the increase in the Post Office?
§ Mr. LloydOne example is the graduated pensions scheme. That is a case where a very heavy additional burden is put on a Department as a result of an Act passed by the House. I will certainly see whether I can give my hon. Friend further information.