05 December 2003
Devolution is here to stay and is likely to continue to evolve throughout the UK, according to one of the principal architects of the Scottish Executive.
John Elvidge, permanent secretary at the Executive, said Scots felt that devolution was an 'irreversible step'. He said: 'It now feels inconceivable that one could resort to the prior arrangement.' He noted, though, that recent developments in Northern Ireland had shown that devolved powers could be withdrawn.
Addressing a CIPFA-organised seminar at the Department for International Development on December 2, Elvidge said that the Scottish Executive was becoming more confident. It had abandoned an initial tendency to cling to UK policies and had struck out with radical approaches, including the abolition of university tuition fees, statutory education rights and free care for the elderly.
He said that the Executive's costs had risen and that the administration's size had risen by a third, but this was to be expected in the first phase of devolution. It was too early to see the effects of long-term savings, he said.
He said that the boundaries of devolution were not static and policy-makers needed to think about what changes were likely and how they could be executed.
'It isn't about going backwards, it isn't about standing still, it's about what the shape of the future will look like,' he said.
He predicted that pressure for greater powers would be sustained in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK but said he had 'absolutely no idea' whether more devolution would come through gradual evolution or significant changes.
Elvidge also noted that the Scottish elections in May 2003 had indicated growing sophistication in the use of the second vote, with greater support going to fringe parties such as the Greens and Scottish socialists.
He suggested this could mean a two-party coalition might not be sustainable and multi-party government could emerge.
Staff face jam in cost-inefficient GCHQ doughnut
Security chiefs were this week accused by MPs of 'fiddling' the cost of installing information technology systems at the government's new spy headquarters, which has since become the largest private finance deal undertaken by the government.
The influential Public Accounts Committee lambasted the seven-fold increase, to £308m, in the cost of relocating vital IT resources to the new Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham – which cost £1.62bn.
Appearing before the PAC on December 1, in his first public appearance, David Pepper, the director of GCHQ, was told by senior Labour MP Alan Williams that there had been a 'major muck-up' in the project and that officials were 'trying to duck for cover'.
MPs said the Treasury was partially responsible, having allowed GCHQ to use a 'fiddle factor' – an increase of up to £50m in the costs for which they had initially planned.
Pepper denied that there had been any manipulation of the figures, saying there was 'no question of anything having been fiddled'.
Instead, he and intelligence officials argued that there had been errors in estimating the significant costs involved in moving, updating and installing the IT systems.
A National Audit Office report last summer found that the giant GCHQ building, nicknamed the doughnut because of its shape, had been delivered on time and within budget.
But MPs also heard that the new building is so overcrowded that intelligence staff, often those recruited to head the government's war on terror, have to share desks.
Whitehall sickness rate blamed on weak management
Only 36% of civil servants in Whitehall got through 2002 without taking a day off sick, figures published by the Cabinet Office this week revealed.
The rate of sickness absenteeism was up to 50% higher than in the private sector, with an average of 9.8 days per employee lost – up from 9.2 in 2001 – and up to 17.3 in some departments.
The increasing problem of illness absence cost taxpayers £370m for the home civil service alone, with 4,903,705 lost working days.
The December 1 report, compiled by consultancy Aon, warned that improvement was 'highly unlikely' unless management improved. 'It is vital that our departments and agencies recognise the importance of positive management and an understanding of staff attitudes and behaviour,' it says.
David Willetts, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: 'Either civil servants are all very sick or the management systems are all very weak. When the government is spending so much on sickness benefits, it ought to be able to manage the situation better.'
PFdec2003
