Page 4028 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Jensen said: "Will we not need changes?". I took that to mean that we do not need to increase, which was the question that we were in the process of answering. It is obvious that that is what I was saying, because my "No, no" is followed by "And indeed, in all administrative areas, more efficiencies are being sought throughout the service". So, we do not need additional staff; we are all about doing it more efficiently.
Mr Jensen clearly took it that way himself, because he followed up with a question which makes sense only in the context of a line of questioning seeking to establish that more work, or more responsibility, means more staff. He says, "You are confident that you will be able to establish and license those additional places with the same staff you have at the moment?". I said, "Yes", and I went onto efficiencies.
Peppered throughout the Estimates Committee was that consistent answer on staff savings, which was this: "We have not yet identified them; we are in the process of identifying them", and, as I say, there was a letter to the relevant delegate of the Public Sector Union in that work area a week before that was clearly indicating that that was an area that the management were looking at as a possibility of savings options.
In Mr Duby's remarks today he said that I had misled the Assembly in my answers on Thursday. He repeatedly says that I had assured the Assembly that there would not be staff cuts in this area. As I say, the Estimates Committee transcript makes it clear that that was not what was said at all. What was said was that there was no need for additional staff; efficiencies were occurring. The stock answer to "Where will you cut staff?", received throughout that Estimates Committee throughout my three days of attendance, was: "We do not yet know; we are in the process of consultation".
He then made the incorrect statement, which we cannot say is a misleading statement, that I had confirmed to Ms Maher in question time on Thursday that there would, indeed, be two positions saved in this area. When Ms Maher asked me a question, which was, "Will there be a reduction at ASO level from 4.5 to 2.5?", I said that I presumed that she was making reference to the reductions of administrative staff occurring throughout; and I gave the stock answer - that there is a process of consultation and that, unfortunately, in some areas savings have to occur.
There was a supplementary question from Ms Maher, which then tried to suggest that there had been a conflict with what had been said in the Estimates Committee. I gave my repeated answer, which was that we did not know what staff positions were being saved; we were going through a process of consultation. I said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .