UK minister 'doesn't expect' Newport job losses

South Wales Argus: (L-R) Airbus apprentices Sam Redman, Michael Sparrey, Daniel Evans, Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude, Airbus apprentice Ross England and Michael Stevens, MD Cassidian, Airbus Defence & Space. (4461453) (L-R) Airbus apprentices Sam Redman, Michael Sparrey, Daniel Evans, Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude, Airbus apprentice Ross England and Michael Stevens, MD Cassidian, Airbus Defence & Space. (4461453)

A MINISTER overseeing the possible privatisation of a Newport civil service office said he didn’t expect job losses there.

However Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, left open the possibility for the Ministry of Justice shared service centre to stay in Government hands.

There are fears from unions and MPs that people could be faced with their jobs being off-shored.

Under the current proposals the centre, based at Celtic Springs business park, could be kept within the ministry or joined with either a private firm or a public private joint venture.

Mr Maude, who spoke to the Argus while he was on a visit to Airbus in Newport on Friday, said : “We are very sensitive to the need to provide as much certainty as possible.

“Certainly I don’t have any expectation there will be further job losses.”

But the minister added: “No one, whether in the private sector or in the civil service, can be given absolute certainty that all jobs will be protected.”

He said: “There’s no assumption that the only way to improve shared services is outsourcing.

“I don’t have a dogmatic view about what the right way for the MoJ shared service centre will be.

“The thing we absolutely have to do is ensure that we get maximum value for taxpayer money, while at the same time maximising opportunity for skilled and experienced staff to expand what they do.”

Mr Maude, who has oversight of the shared service programme, claimed that the former Department for Transport shared service centre in Swansea is now recruiting after it was outsourced to a private firm.

The Conservative MP said there was no timescale for when an announcement will be made.

Mr Maude visited the Office of National Statistics in Newport and Airbus at Celtic Springs, where he met some of the firm’s apprentices.

However, he didn’t visit the MoJ centre, which is located nearby.

Around 700 full-time permanent staff and 300 casual, fixed term or agency workers work at the office.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:25pm Mon 10 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

"Since becoming a journalist I
had often heard the advice. ..
"believe nothing until it has been
officially denied" ~ Claude Cockburn
"Since becoming a journalist I had often heard the advice. .. "believe nothing until it has been officially denied" ~ Claude Cockburn KarloMarko
  • Score: 1

4:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

BobEvams2014 says...

These are public sector jobs, these people are paid far to much for what they do, these should be in fact be minimum wage jobs and less of them. So come on Mr Maude , wield the axe and lets get rid of these slackers !!!!!
These are public sector jobs, these people are paid far to much for what they do, these should be in fact be minimum wage jobs and less of them. So come on Mr Maude , wield the axe and lets get rid of these slackers !!!!! BobEvams2014
  • Score: -9

6:10pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Mr Holder says...

BobEvams2014 wrote:
These are public sector jobs, these people are paid far to much for what they do, these should be in fact be minimum wage jobs and less of them. So come on Mr Maude , wield the axe and lets get rid of these slackers !!!!!
Troll
[quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: These are public sector jobs, these people are paid far to much for what they do, these should be in fact be minimum wage jobs and less of them. So come on Mr Maude , wield the axe and lets get rid of these slackers !!!!![/p][/quote]Troll Mr Holder
  • Score: -2

6:37pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Magor says...

Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford. Magor
  • Score: -1

8:58pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Magor wrote:
Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
[quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

12:05pm Tue 11 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before.

proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run.

regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what! whatintheworld
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before.

proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run.

regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what![/p][/quote]Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

1:44pm Tue 11 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?
uk civil service employs 420,000.

5k doesn't look too bad in context!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what![/p][/quote]Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?[/p][/quote]uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context! whatintheworld
  • Score: -2

2:30pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?
uk civil service employs 420,000.

5k doesn't look too bad in context!
Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed?
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what![/p][/quote]Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?[/p][/quote]uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context![/p][/quote]Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

3:47pm Tue 11 Mar 14

whatintheworld says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?
uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context!
Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed?
firstly, i agree. there is probably a lot of room to slim down on the 420,000.

but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? why would you? did you notice when 400 more staff were employed?

or are you reacting to stories and comments you see in the news?

realistically, 5000 civil servants serving one country (even one as small as wales) is reasonable.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what![/p][/quote]Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?[/p][/quote]uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context![/p][/quote]Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed?[/p][/quote]firstly, i agree. there is probably a lot of room to slim down on the 420,000. but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? why would you? did you notice when 400 more staff were employed? or are you reacting to stories and comments you see in the news? realistically, 5000 civil servants serving one country (even one as small as wales) is reasonable. whatintheworld
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Tue 11 Mar 14

BobEvams2014 says...

It is time action was taken. There are people working in this establishment who left the Private Sector for ' better terms and conditions' - pathetic isn't it.

When this place closes all ex Private Sector workers should be named , shamed and banned from any future employment within the Private Sector.

It's time that we started picketing places like this, preventing the workforce entering, demanding their sacking, and closure of the establishment.
It is time action was taken. There are people working in this establishment who left the Private Sector for ' better terms and conditions' - pathetic isn't it. When this place closes all ex Private Sector workers should be named , shamed and banned from any future employment within the Private Sector. It's time that we started picketing places like this, preventing the workforce entering, demanding their sacking, and closure of the establishment. BobEvams2014
  • Score: -3

6:00pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
whatintheworld wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Magor wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.
Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.
the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what!
Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?
uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context!
Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed?
firstly, i agree. there is probably a lot of room to slim down on the 420,000.

but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? why would you? did you notice when 400 more staff were employed?

or are you reacting to stories and comments you see in the news?

realistically, 5000 civil servants serving one country (even one as small as wales) is reasonable.
'but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? '

You think we'd have all noticed if the governance of a Wales ground to a halt. It didn't.
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: Too many public sector jobs were created by Labour that we dont really need and cant afford.[/p][/quote]Yes, like the 400 more just taken on at WAG.[/p][/quote]the 400 new jobs at WAG were created after getting rid of 1000+ the year before. proves that if you swing the axe too swiftly, you end up cutting more than necessary - creates more of a spend in the long run. regarding mr maudes answer - slippery or what![/p][/quote]Nearly 6000 work there. Given their appalling record of non-achievement in 14 years, aren't even you inclined to ask 'doing what'?[/p][/quote]uk civil service employs 420,000. 5k doesn't look too bad in context![/p][/quote]Well leaving aside that there are probably way too many of them as well, all WAG does is (mis-)manage the health service and education (extremely badly). And if this 1000 they got rid of were so 'sorely missed', how come none of the rest of us noticed?[/p][/quote]firstly, i agree. there is probably a lot of room to slim down on the 420,000. but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? why would you? did you notice when 400 more staff were employed? or are you reacting to stories and comments you see in the news? realistically, 5000 civil servants serving one country (even one as small as wales) is reasonable.[/p][/quote]'but the reason you didnt notice 1000 wg staff going? ' You think we'd have all noticed if the governance of a Wales ground to a halt. It didn't. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

7:12pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Limestonecowboy says...

BobEvams2014 wrote:
It is time action was taken. There are people working in this establishment who left the Private Sector for ' better terms and conditions' - pathetic isn't it. When this place closes all ex Private Sector workers should be named , shamed and banned from any future employment within the Private Sector. It's time that we started picketing places like this, preventing the workforce entering, demanding their sacking, and closure of the establishment.
What are you talking about better tearms & conditions is what all should aspire. If the private sector is so good why are the railways in such a mess fleecing the public getting to work. You will soon see how the private sector tries to make a profit out of public services & what a shambles it will turn out to be.
[quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: It is time action was taken. There are people working in this establishment who left the Private Sector for ' better terms and conditions' - pathetic isn't it. When this place closes all ex Private Sector workers should be named , shamed and banned from any future employment within the Private Sector. It's time that we started picketing places like this, preventing the workforce entering, demanding their sacking, and closure of the establishment.[/p][/quote]What are you talking about better tearms & conditions is what all should aspire. If the private sector is so good why are the railways in such a mess fleecing the public getting to work. You will soon see how the private sector tries to make a profit out of public services & what a shambles it will turn out to be. Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree