More than 100 civil servants set to be cut from security vetting and Cobra teams
The Cabinet Office has proposed reducing the staff at UK Security Vetting (UKSV) to 780 full-time roles, down from its current level of just under 900, the PA news agency understands.
Further cuts have also been proposed for the teams supporting the Government's emergency Cobra committee, including the number of staff working on chemical, biological and radiological threats.
PCS union chief Fran Heathcote warned that the cuts would 'compromise key Government functions, including those critical to national security and emergency preparedness'.
The process is understood to be still ongoing and no final decisions on job cuts have been made.
The proposed cuts are part of wider plans to reduce the number of civil servants working for the Cabinet Office by 2,100 as part of efforts to cut the overall cost of government by 15%.
Most of the cuts are expected to come through voluntary redundancy or by not replacing people who leave, while other civil servants will be redeployed elsewhere.
A source familiar with the proposals told PA that the Cabinet Office had proposed cutting around 110 jobs from UKSV, which vets people for sensitive roles including in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, as well as conducting security checks on staff applying for parliamentary passes.
UKSV was heavily criticised by the National Audit Office in 2023 over delays carrying out checks that, the watchdog said, risked hampering work on national security.
Writing in Civil Service World last year, UKSV's chief executive Trish Deghorn said the organisation had managed to turn itself around since then, in part due to increased staffing levels.
A source told PA that the Cabinet Office had argued that back-office staff working on UKSV's recovery were no longer required and the organisation's headcount could now be cut.
The source also told PA that around 30 jobs were proposed to be cut from the teams supporting Cobra after a merger of Cabinet Office directorates working on crisis response and resilience.
These include cutting three of the 10 staff working on chemical, biological and radiological threats, although the team will continue to exist.
Fran Heathcote, general secretary of the PCS union, said: 'We warned from the outset that plans for job cuts at the Cabinet Office failed to distinguish between back-office and frontline roles.
'It is now evident that these cuts will undermine the delivery of essential public services and compromise key government functions, including those critical to national security and emergency preparedness.
'PCS will continue to stand firmly with our members in opposing these damaging cuts. We will defend their job security and the vital work they do to keep the country running safely and effectively.'
Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, said: 'While Labour let the welfare state balloon to £100 billion per year, handing out billion-pound bungs to their union paymasters whilst funnelling money into diversity jobs, it beggars belief they are cutting back on our national security and emergency infrastructure.
'As always for Labour, it's party first, country second.'
A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We don't routinely comment on national security staffing.
'More broadly, we are making the department more strategic, specialist and smaller, helping existing teams better serve the public and deliver the plan for change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
No, Kemi Badenoch – housing asylum seekers in tents won't solve our immigration problem
Kemi Badenoch might say that she was 'only asking a question' when she said, at a meeting with protesters against an asylum hotel in Epping: 'Is it possible for us to set up camps and police that, rather than bringing all of this hassle into communities?' But it wouldn't be a good idea. While the answer is yes – it is technically possible to build tent villages away from population centres to house those applying for refugee status – these camps would always be close to somewhere. Badenoch's question is an example of the politics of 'far away' that has always afflicted thinking about asylum-seekers. Even Tony Blair considered a detention camp on the island of Mull, which seems empty and far away from London – but people live there, too, and in the end he decided that he was also only asking a question. He also thought about using the Falklands for an asylum processing centre, and the last Conservative government went through Ascension Island and St Helena before finally devising a scheme that was the ultimate 'far away', to deport arrivals to Rwanda without even considering their applications for asylum. And Rwanda only ever had the capacity to take a few hundred migrants, which would have been insignificant against the 50,000 that have arrived by small boat in little more than a year of the Labour government. While the cross-Channel traffic is high, putting asylum-seekers 'somewhere else' does not solve the problem. Nor would processing asylum claims more quickly – although that would end the need for hotels, because migrants accepted as refugees or granted leave to remain would be allowed to work and would be able to support themselves. But that would not solve the problem of the small boats continuing to arrive, which is what is so damaging to people's confidence that the government is in control of immigration. That is the problem that Badenoch ought to be addressing, instead of talking vaguely of 'camps'. Indeed, what is notable about the reporting of the psychologically significant 50,000-mark being passed is how little the condemnation of the Labour government for 'losing control of our borders' is matched by practical suggestions for regaining control of them. This is not surprising in Badenoch's case, because it was the previous government that lost control of the sea border in the first place – as Jacqui Smith, who was Labour's minister for the media round this morning, fairly pointed out. The Conservative case against Labour rests on two flimsy arguments. One is that Labour cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which was 'just about to work'. The other is that Badenoch is edging towards repudiating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Neither is convincing. The Rwanda scheme was just about to work in the sense that I am just about to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. It was always too small to deter cross-Channel arrivals: if they are willing to risk their lives to get here, they would be willing to take the tiny risk of removal to Rwanda. And ditching the ECHR would not make much difference to the numbers of failed asylum-seekers who could be removed from the UK. What is more important for Keir Starmer, however, is the threat from Nigel Farage. His 'solution' to the small boats problem is no more credible than the Tories', but it is not undermined by having recently been in government and unable to do anything about it. Farage's policy is to detain and deport all illegal migrants – although his manifesto last year did not say where, how or even if the countries to which they should be sent would take them. In practice, he proposes indefinite detention in prison camps, location unknown. Meanwhile, Reform's policy is that 'migrants in small boats will be picked up and taken back to France'. What if the French retaliate by taking them off the quay and taking them to the UK? Farage has no answer. But he doesn't need one, because he hasn't failed – yet. That is why it is so important to Starmer that his plan to return migrants to France – by agreement – succeeds. Education minister Jacqui Smith was right this morning to say the Labour government had inherited a problem from the Tories that was not 'our fault', and she was honest enough to admit that it is a problem that, 'up to this point, we haven't managed to tackle in terms of the numbers who are coming here'. The Labour government has a possible solution. If it can increase the numbers on the 'one in, one out' scheme so that all or nearly all arrivals are sent back to France, the small boats will stop coming. But will take time. And time and patience are running out.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
JK Rowling pens foul-mouthed 'review' of Nicola Sturgeon's autobiography as the pair's clash over gender rights rumbles on
JK Rowling reignited her bitter feud with Nicola Sturgeon today after penning a foul-mouthed 'review' of the ex-Scottish leader's new autobiography. The former Scottish First Minister's memoir, 'Frankly', hit shelves this week but has seen her ridiculed after fawning reviews compared her to Barack Obama. Now, the ex-SNP boss's old nemesis, Harry Potter author Rowling, has once again taken a potshot at Ms Sturgeon by trolling her in a ruthless post online. It's the latest clash in a long-running feud between the two women over transgender rights which dates back more than three years. Seemingly resuming the war of words, Rowling focused her tirade on a segment in the memoir in which the 'heroine [Sturgeon] opines on the need to make the "public sphere" safe for women and girls'. Accompanying the post is a picture of Sturgeon's autobiography in which Rowling scrawled across the top of the page: 'Are you f***ing kidding me???' She added: 'Annotating as I read to review. Might auction my scribbled-on copy, proceeds to go to. NB: nobody who's offended by swearing should bid.' The multi-millionaire author's post comes a day after she tore into Sturgeon during a fierce attack on X over their long-running row about transgender rights. It followed a car crash TV interview in which Sturgeon claimed anyone who rapes a woman 'forfeits the right to be the gender of their choice' - while struggling to answer fresh questions about transgender prisoner, Isla Bryson. '"We've lost all sense of rationality in [the gender] debate,"' said Nicola Sturgeon,' Rowling wrote. 'Only one side has lost rationality. Only one side pretends there's more than two sexes. Only one side lets male rapists into women's prisons. Only one side supports child sterilisation. Yours.' Rowling, who is a staunch women's rights activist and has been furiously critical of the transgender movement, previously offered her services to 'review' her old foe's autobiography in a tongue-in-cheek post on her social media. It followed one fawning review of the book, which dubbed it a 'triumph', and added: '"Frankly" is the most insightful and stylishly open memoir by a politician since Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father.' 'I am available to review Nicola Sturgeon's memoir,' children's writer JK Rowling later announced. 'No fee required, as long as you don't edit out the swear words.' Today's post by Rowling, slating Sturgeon's memoir, is the latest broadside levelled at the former First Minister by the Harry Potter creator, who has a net worth of around £945million. In 2022, Rowling wore a T-shirt which branded Sturgeon a 'destroyer of women's rights' in protest against the Scottish Government's gender recognition reform laws, which were later blocked by the UK Government. The move prompted Sturgeon to call for those with strong views to 'treat each other with respect'. When Ms Sturgeon refused to comment on the Supreme Court gender ruling in April, Ms Rowling hit out again She said: 'I have always thought that on this issue, where people have very strong views, we should all try to treat each other with respect and that is what I will continue to do.' The row escalated after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in April, which clarified that a woman is biologically female for the purposes of equalities laws, when Rowling compared Sturgeon to Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus' crucifixtion. After Sturgeon refused to comment on the ruling, Ms Rowling mocked her silence by sharing a social media selfie of the Glasgow MSP in the gym on Easter Monday calling her 'Pontius Pilates'. In the Bible, Pontius Pilate did not believe that Jesus had committed a crime but condemned him to death because the crowd called for it. And last month, after Sturgeon chaired a discussion about the witch trials in Scotland, Rowling hit out at her adversary again. She said: 'If Sturgeon had been around in the 1500s she'd have been right there lighting the pyres. 'Ungodly women like this not only blight the crops and turn the milk, they almost certainly put a spell on my husband which made him pilfer all the tithes.' The author has consistently stuck up for women's rights in recent years - and has even pledged to personally fund gender-critical legal actions. The 'fighting fund' is helping women who have lost their livelihoods or are facing employment tribunals because of their views on sex-based rights. The criteria covers those who 'don't have adequate means to bring actions to court or to defend themselves'. It was publicly announced in May after prisoner Jane Sutherley said she was considering suing the Scottish Prison Service after she was forced to share facilities with transgender women.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Post Offices face axe under government shake-up
Post Offices across the UK are at risk as Labour considers scrapping a rule forcing ministers to protect thousands of branches. The Government is consulting on whether to axe the requirement to keep at least 11,500 Post Offices open, suggesting that a 'smaller' network could be better suited to meet 'market trends'. The minimum branch requirement was introduced by the Tory-led coalition in 2010, after Labour oversaw thousands of cuts to the network in the 2000s. Scrapping the limit is not Labour's preferred course of action, with the Government saying it would rather keep things as they are. However, it is a 'lower cost option' being considered by ministers to help achieve policy objectives. Dame Harriett Baldwin, the shadow business minister, said the review would threaten 'the future of branches nationwide', putting vital services for vulnerable people at risk. Under the proposal, the exact size of the network would become an 'operational decision' for the Post Office. However, it would still need to ensure that at least 99 per cent of the population stays within three miles of a full service branch. The Government said the Post Office would have 'more flexibility to adapt to market trends' as its resources would be 'less thinly spread'. But it acknowledged that a 'modestly smaller network' would likely be a concern to people living nearby. The consultation document said: 'As set out at the beginning of the chapter, there are already changes happening in the network to allow Post Office to make the most of opportunity in the parcels market. 'Too much change at the same time could lead to instability for Post Office as well as communities and so it might be preferable to wait to see how the network evolves in the short term before reviewing the overall size and for any longer-term changes to be phased in over time.' Instead, ministers have said they would prefer to maintain all existing requirements, with the Government continuing to subsidise loss-making branches to ensure everyone has access to a Post Office. At the beginning of the millennium, there were 18,393 Post Offices. By 2023, this had dropped to 11,684. The biggest fall was at the height of the financial crisis, between 2008 and 2009, when the total dropped by 1,615. Dame Harriett, who has been a vocal campaigner for the Post Office network, said: 'Labour's extensive Post Office review threatens the future of branches nationwide. 'And this will put vital services at risk. Especially for pensioners, rural communities, and small businesses who rely on them most. 'I've been an advocate for Post Offices, those who work there and those who rely on them all my political career. And for the last 15 years the number of Post Offices has been kept stable at 11,500. Labour are now consulting on reducing that number.' She added: 'The closure of Post Offices could once again leave pensioners, small businesses and rural communities cut off from vital services. With bank branches closing, often it's Post Offices that provide vital banking services. 'I'd encourage all Telegraph readers to respond to the Government's consultation and I've also started a petition which has already attracted 100,000 signatures.' The petition, called Save Your Post Office, urges people to push back against the potential closures.
