JOB SECURITY AND MORALE
42. During our discussion with senior staff about
efficiency savings we inevitably touched on the role of redundancies—or
head count reductions—in reducing costs. The Department's
target is to reduce its staff by 400, and we were told that it
had drawn together proposals from its offices and associated bodies
which could deliver a reduction of about 700 posts.[38]
These reductions would be made without reducing outputs; otherwise,
Mr Unwin argued, they would be a cut rather than a saving.[39]
43. In this context we note that the number of respondents
to the staff survey who felt they had good job security dropped
by 30 per cent, from 82 per cent in 2003 to 52 per cent in 2005.
Mr Housden suggested that insecurity was "particularly pronounced"
in the area of business services, where efficiencies were being
sought through joint operations with other departments.[40]
Our concern is that, wherever job insecurity is felt, there will
be a consequential impact on staff effectiveness and thus on delivery.
Unless staff morale is tackled as an issue the Department may
find that, while it is theoretically possible to maintain and
improve its output with fewer staff, such improvements are hard
to realise. Staff rationalisation should be managed in a way
that does not diminish Departmental effectiveness. Service delivery
must not suffer.
44. The Department has made a start in listening
to its staff and identifying their concerns. The challenge facing
Mr Housden and the Board is to find practical ways of delivering
internal change, in particular in the areas of senior leadership,
tackling unfair treatment, addressing poor performance and maintaining
morale. As Mr Housden noted, the buck stops with him: we intend
to return to these matters in twelve months time to review his
progress.
33 
