Civil Servants (Hansard, 28 April 1981)

§ 9. Mr. Grist
asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in reducing the number of civil servants employed in his Department.

§ Mr. Waddington
Since May 1979, savings in staff of 3,820 have been achieved.
Total staffing has, however, increased by 2,535 because the main determinant of the Department's staffing requirement is the level of unemployment; there has been an increase in the staffing of the unemployment benefit service and for special measures.

§ Mr. Grist
Is my hon. and learned Fried aware that, although we can all appreciate the need to maintain and, in certain circumstances, to increase the number of field officers in his Department, everything possible should be done to cut the number of employees at headquarters and in Whitehall?

§ Mr. Waddington
Yes, Sir. There has been an increase in the number of local and regional office staff who are engaged in unemployment benefit work and special measures. In that area, there has been an increase of no fewer than 6,355 persons. Obviously we should keep the situation under review to ensure that there is no waste.

§ Mr. Cryer
Is not the increase in the number of the Department of Employment's civil servants a reflection of the lengthening dole queues? Was not the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) characteristic of the campaign of denigration that has been carried out against civil servants? His Department has shown that it has an important role and function. Are not the current dispute and the discomfort caused to air travellers the result of the Government's continued attack on the Civil Service and of their continued and determined refusal to send the dispute to arbitration, as civil servants desire?

§ Mr. Waddington
I recognise no denigration in the question put by my hon. Friend. Any sensible person would obviously be concerned to ensure that there is no waste in our bureaucracy and that the figures are kept down as far as possible. I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the discomfort to air travellers. I cannot understand why anyone, in pursuit of an industrial claim, should cause inconvenience—and glory in causing inconvenience—to innocent citizens.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
As the civil servants in my hon. and learned Friend's Department and those employed by the Manpower Services Commission are among those in Whitehall who know more about the effects of unemployment than any others, will he try to persuade them to persuade union leaders in the Civil Service to give up their strike in the interests of the country and the unemployed?

§ Mr. Waddington
I am sure that all those concerned will have heeded the remarks of my hon. Friend. There is no profit for anyone in the continuance of the dispute. I repeat that it is causing hardship to a large number of innocent people.

§ Mr. Barry Jones
Why is the Minister permitting the MSC's employment division to lose 1,700 jobs and £80 million in the years ahead? Does not that presage a decline in services for the unemployed who should have an increase in services?

§ Mr. Waddington
It is inevitable that when economies have to be made every Government Department has to make its contribution. MSC jobs have been cut by 1,927 between 1979 and 1981. That is in proportion to cuts made elsewhere. We do not see the need for a significant decline in the service afforded to the unemployed.