§ 40. Mr. Canavanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with trade union representatives of the Civil Service.
§ The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.
§ Mr. CanavanWhy are the Government hell-bent on destroying another 37,000 Civil Service jobs by 1988, which will mean a job loss in the Civil Service of 139,000 since 1980? How can the Government justify staff reductions in Departments such as the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security when over 3 million are unemployed, over 7 million are dependent on supplementary benefit and about 9 million retirement pensioners and many other deserving cases on low incomes depend on the services of those Departments?
§ Mr. HayhoeThe planned reduction of 6 per cent. between 1 April 1984 and 1988 is a net figure. There will be some staff increases in the prison department, for example. The objective is to obtain improved efficiency and better value for money.
§ Mr. EggarWhat is the response of trade union representatives to the proposals in the financial management initiative, especially the important step of devolving decision-taking to more junior managers?
§ Mr. HayhoeI have not had a meeting with the Civil Service unions about the financial management initiative.
§ Mr. KirkwoodBearing in mind the concern that is being expressd within the confines of the trade union movement over the representations of forestry workers, will the Minister give an assurance that he will give early consideration to arranging a meeting with those involved?
§ Mr. HayhoeI imagine that that will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Responsibility will lie with one or other of my right hon. Friends in the first instance.
§ Dr. McDonaldIs the Minister aware that cuts in DHSS staff have already meant that visits to pensioners to ensure that they have all the benefits to which they are entitled have been reduced to one call every three to four years and that the unemployed are not visited until nearly the end of their first year of unemployment? Does this not mean that pensioners and the unemployed are subsidising the cuts in the Civil Service and that they are in receipt of much poorer and much less efficient services as a result?
§ Mr. HayhoeI do not accept that description, which is highly exaggerated and extremely partisan. The hon. Lady should address detailed questions on the DHSS or the Department of Employment to the responsible Ministers.