HC Deb 08 May 1984 vol 59 c274W
Sir Bernard Braine

asked the Prime Minister what was the size of the Civil Service at 1 April 1984; and how this compares with the plans she announced on 13 May 1980.

The Prime Minister

On 1 April 1984 there were 623,972 staff-in-post in central Government Departments. This reflects a reduction in the size of the Civil Service of more than 108,000 or 14.8 per cent. since the beginning of the last Parliament. This is a considerable achievement. We have done even better than planned. A key pledge has been fulfilled; and the Civil Service gross pay bill is over £¾ billion lower as a result.

As the House will recall, when I announced the 1 April 1984 target of 630,000 in May 1980, it was called a statement of pious hope by the Opposition. Others foresaw a decline in efficiency and the near collapse of essential services.

I pay tribute to the Civil Service for loyally carrying our policy through. Savings have been made by improvements in efficiency, greater use of new technology, by cutting out unnecessary work and by privatisation and contracting out. Productivity gains have been made, sometimes hand in hand with improvements in levels of service. For example, since 1979 staff numbers in the Department of Health and Social Security have been reduced by over 7,000, but unit costs for delivering benefits have been reduced by about 20 per cent. And in transport, the waiting time for driving tests has been reduced, despite fewer staff.

These very substantial reductions in manpower have, moreover, been achieved against a background of an increasing work load in some areas of the Civil Service —for example, in the employment and social security groups, because of the rise in benefit payments in the Land Registry, due in part to the large numbers of sales of council houses; in the prison service; and, of course, in youth training.

Plans for a further reduction of 6 per cent. over the next four years were announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary, on 17 November 1983. The Civil Service will then have been slimmed down by nearly one-fifth; and we shall be looking for further improvements. Our policy is to retain within the Civil Service only work which must be done there, or which can be done more efficiently and effectively there. Value for money for the taxpayer is a key objective. I am determined that these policies will continue to be vigorously pursued.