Union's fury at 7,000 more MoD job cuts

Published on Friday, 29 July 2011 15:53
Posted by Scott Buckler

PCS, the trade union representing the majority of civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence, has denounced the announcement of an extra 7,000 job cuts as "shameful" (July 29th)


The strategic defence and security review, which was announced in October, proposed axing 25,000 civilian and 17,000 military jobs.

Since then PCS has met several times with secretary of state Liam Fox and with junior defence ministers and had come to an agreement that the job cut targets were not set in stone and could be reduced if savings could be made elsewhere.

The civil service trade unions met with Dr Fox last week (19 July) and he reiterated this point.

For some months now, the trade unions have been working on alternatives that will help bring the department in on budget.

It is totally unreasonable for the Ministry of Defence to announce another 7,000 job cuts when we are supposed to be working jointly on avoiding the first tranche of 25,000 job cuts.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “This is a shameful way to treat anybody, far less the people who serve on the front line, and those who support them. Cutting 32,000 civilians and 24,000 military personnel in the MoD could put lives at risk.

“Since the defence review announcement in October, PCS has been thwarted at every turn in our attempts to find out where these cuts will be made and what impact it will have on the front line. How can the MoD announce more job cuts when they have no idea how they will run the department just now?”

“PCS has been working on a coherent programme for defence that identifies and reduces waste; frees up service personnel to serve in the front line by civilianising non essential military posts and eliminating unnecessary external expenditure.

“According the MoD’s own records, they spend approximately £6bn per annum on external expenditure such as consultants.”

Source: PCS Union

The views expressed in the contents below are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of GovToday.

Add comment