Rayner Scrutinies (Hansard, 24 November 1986)

§ 68. Mr. Gerald Bowden
asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the Rayner scrutinies.

§ The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce)
Savings already made as a result of efficiency scrutinies are now running at £300 million per year and further annual savings of £100 million are expected to be made. The scrutinies have also led directly to improvements in service to the public.
The scrutiny process, begun by Lord Rayner and continued under the supervision of Sir Robin Ibbs, continues to prove its worth. Details of the 1986–87 scrutiny programme will be announced shortly.

§ Mr. Bowden
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Could the Rayner scrutiny process be extended to other aspects of the public service?

§ Mr. Luce
The task of efficiency scrutinies does not suddenly stop now. There will continue to be a relentless drive to ensure that the taxpayer and the public receive the best value for money and that our Civil Service is as professional as possible. The number of scrutinies will continue to be roughly 30 per annum.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Will the Rayner scrutiny process extend to considering whether sending the head of the Civil Service to take part in court proceedings in Australia represents value for money?

§ Mr. Luce
I do not think that there is anything useful that I can add.

§ Mr. Key
Will my hon. Friend consider carefully a no doubt unintentional side effect of the Rayner scrutinies? A number of organisations in my constituency are aware of the shortage of apprenticeships, especially engineering apprenticeships, and of training capacity. Is my hon. Friend aware that the scrutiny arrangements sometimes mean that directors have to choose between a PhD and an apprentice because of the manpower targets? Does he agree that that cannot be sensible?

§ Mr. Luce
That question goes a little wider than policy on scrutinies. As my hon. Friend knows, important training schemes are run both by central Government and by individual Departments to cope with the problems to which he has drawn attention.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
Will the scrutinies extend to consideration of service to the public? Will my right hon. Friend examine waiting times at DHSS offices, for instance, which sometimes seem unreasonable, especially for those who have lost their jobs or face financial hardship?

§ Mr. Luce
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The purpose of the scrutinies is not just to obtain better value for money, but also to ensure a better service to the public, and some services have been improved as a result of the scrutinies. For instance, recommendations to reduce the time taken to settle planning appeals from 21 to 11 weeks are being implemented as a result of the scrutiny carried out in that area.

§ Dr. McDonald
The Opposition agree with the Rayner objectives of efficiency and wellbeing for the Civil Service, but is the Minister aware that those objectives cannot be achieved if the Government misuse a senior civil servant such as Sir Robert Armstrong by placing him in an invidious position in the Australian courts and requiring him to be economical with the truth when such matters are the responsibility of Ministers? As Minister responsible for the Civil Service, what is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of that?

§ Mr. Luce
I welcome very much the support that the hon. Lady gives on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition to the policy on scrutinies. With regard to our civil servants, I reiterate what I said to the House at the end of July this year—that in Sir Robert Armstrong, as both Secretary of the Cabinet and head of the Home Civil Service, we have one of the most outstanding post-war civil servants.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people feel that there are now too many civil servants in situ? Does he agree that what we need is a loyal and obedient Civil Service, not some of the Militant Tendency civil servants, who are deliberately undermining the powers and wishes of the Government and the local departments? Can we encourage civil servants to be loyal to the Crown again?

§ Mr. Luce
I must say to my hon. Friend that the size of the Civil Service has reduced by no less than 20 per cent. in the past seven years, so it is at the lowest level that it has ever been since the second world war. To suggest that the service is full of people who are disloyal is a wrong impression to give. We have a service that is impartial, dedicated and professional. The country should note that and admire it.