By David Williams
30 October 2009
The head of the civil service has warned against routine reorganisation of Whitehall departments because of the costs and disruption involved.
Giving evidence to the Commons public administration select committee, Cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell also highlighted inconsistencies across the public sector in pay settlements for top-ranking public officials.
On Whitehall reorganisation, Labour committee member Gordon Prentice asked if the costs were too high for ‘constant changes done on prime ministerial whims’, and whether a ‘more considered’ way was needed.
‘That’s our system,’ said O’Donnell. ‘Prime ministers are very keen to keep that system. But I would always advise before thinking about issuing government changes that these are potentially very disruptive and you do have costs upfront.
‘I would advise as few changes as possible.’
Prentice suggested that ‘endless’ reorganisations in Whitehall showed that O’Donnell had ‘failed’, but the Cabinet secretary emphasised that the decision always lay with the prime minister.
O’Donnell told the October 29 evidence session it was ‘too early’ to tell what the creation of Lord Mandelson’s Business, Innovation and Skills department had cost.
‘I’m hopeful in time it will be negative, because we’ll have some synergies,’ he said.
O’Donnell also called for a rethink on executive pay. ‘The relativities are out of sync,’ he told MPs. ‘When you see massive disparities in the public sector, there’s something wrong. When you look at the differing responsibilities and people’s salaries, there just doesn’t seem to be much of a relationship.’
The Cabinet secretary said it was appropriate for some leading civil servants to be paid more than the prime minister. Admitting he was one such high-earning executive, he added: ‘Probably I’d say the prime minister’s salary is too low.’ But he said executive salaries should not be raised to match those in the private sector.
O’Donnell questioned shadow chancellor George Osborne’s pledge to strip £3bn out of Whitehall administration costs, although he admitted there were potential large-scale savings to be made across the public sector as a whole.
He also doubted whether the Conservative proposal to publish the salaries of the 35,000 civil servants in the top two pay bands would prove cost-effective.
Tory committee member Charles Walker suggested it would be ‘unfair’ to publish the names of thousands of public servants.
‘I think that’s sensible but it is a Conservative proposal,' responded O’Donnell.
30 October 2009
The head of the civil service has warned against routine reorganisation of Whitehall departments because of the costs and disruption involved.
Giving evidence to the Commons public administration select committee, Cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell also highlighted inconsistencies across the public sector in pay settlements for top-ranking public officials.
On Whitehall reorganisation, Labour committee member Gordon Prentice asked if the costs were too high for ‘constant changes done on prime ministerial whims’, and whether a ‘more considered’ way was needed.
‘That’s our system,’ said O’Donnell. ‘Prime ministers are very keen to keep that system. But I would always advise before thinking about issuing government changes that these are potentially very disruptive and you do have costs upfront.
‘I would advise as few changes as possible.’
Prentice suggested that ‘endless’ reorganisations in Whitehall showed that O’Donnell had ‘failed’, but the Cabinet secretary emphasised that the decision always lay with the prime minister.
O’Donnell told the October 29 evidence session it was ‘too early’ to tell what the creation of Lord Mandelson’s Business, Innovation and Skills department had cost.
‘I’m hopeful in time it will be negative, because we’ll have some synergies,’ he said.
O’Donnell also called for a rethink on executive pay. ‘The relativities are out of sync,’ he told MPs. ‘When you see massive disparities in the public sector, there’s something wrong. When you look at the differing responsibilities and people’s salaries, there just doesn’t seem to be much of a relationship.’
The Cabinet secretary said it was appropriate for some leading civil servants to be paid more than the prime minister. Admitting he was one such high-earning executive, he added: ‘Probably I’d say the prime minister’s salary is too low.’ But he said executive salaries should not be raised to match those in the private sector.
O’Donnell questioned shadow chancellor George Osborne’s pledge to strip £3bn out of Whitehall administration costs, although he admitted there were potential large-scale savings to be made across the public sector as a whole.
He also doubted whether the Conservative proposal to publish the salaries of the 35,000 civil servants in the top two pay bands would prove cost-effective.
Tory committee member Charles Walker suggested it would be ‘unfair’ to publish the names of thousands of public servants.
‘I think that’s sensible but it is a Conservative proposal,' responded O’Donnell.
