11 March 2005
Senior civil servants have called for another large rise in basic pay, despite proposals to increase salaries by up to 15% by 2006.
The FDA union, which represents senior Whitehall staff, this week revealed it wants ministers to address the disparity between the salaries of staff recruited to senior posts from within the civil service and those brought in from the private sector.
A source at the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinates Whitehall pay deals, acknowledged that the issue has become a source of concern among ministers and civil service leaders. They were 'keen to strike a balance between paying sufficiently to attract management expertise from the private sector and retaining skilled staff already operating inside Whitehall'.
Two weeks ago, the Senior Salaries Review Body, which makes recommendations on Whitehall pay, revealed that appointees from the private sector earn almost £14,000 per year more than those recruited from within departments.
The FDA said the union 'will be arguing strongly with the Review Body later this year for a substantially higher increase in the overall level of SCS pay.'
The average salary for external recruits is now £74,095, while those promoted from within Whitehall receive £60,518. Senior staff who join Whitehall from other parts of the public sector earn an average of £68,056.
Appointments at band three, those for senior management, have larger variations: civil service staff receive an average of £126,963 per year, but external appointees get £151,125.
In the SSRB study, it recommended that basic pay for senior staff should rise by 9%. Other recommendations included a 5% basic increase in 2005 and 2006 for permanent secretaries. Cabinet Office officials estimated that some staff could receive increases of 15% by April 2006.
The FDA welcomed those recommendations, but claimed the differences between internal and external recruits 'expose the increasing disparity between pay in the senior civil service and the wider market'.
Cabinet secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull has led a campaign to recruit private sector specialists to improve Whitehall's skills base and has been receptive to criticism that departments should pay more to secure external personnel.
But recent evidence from the SSRB suggests that Whitehall specialists are leaving for highly paid private sector jobs.
Government departments drag their feet over relocation initiative
Plans to move 20,000 civil service posts out of London have become bogged down in 'cynicism, opportunism and foot dragging', a new report suggests.
A study by the consultancy Governetz calls on ministers to hand control of the relocation initiative to regional development agencies because some Whitehall departments have 'virtually ignored' proposals to move away from the capital.
In 2003, the Treasury commissioned Sir Michael Lyons to assess the scope for relocating civil service jobs to cut costs and to boost regional economies.
Lyons reported back in 2004, claiming that 20,000 staff could move by 2010, and ministers recently issued guidance encouraging departments to relocate to deprived areas.
But the Governetz study, published on March 7, claims there is a 'marked resistance' across major departments. The Department for Transport, for example, has suggested moving just 37 posts to a site elsewhere in the Southeast.
David Werran, Governetz chief executive, said the problem was that the 'selection of locations is being left largely in the hands of the civil service and not the RDAs'.
He added: 'The real problem is that the most senior civil servants don't believe in relocation. They still believe that there should be a large centralised cadre of civil service policymakers based in Whitehall.'
The Treasury this week said departments were on target to shift 4,000 posts to the regions by 2006. But recent research by Public Finance discovered that some of those were relocated before Lyons published his study.
Privatisation fears grow for weapons sale agency
The Department of Trade and Industry is considering privatising the Export Control Organisation, the agency that grants licences to distribute military equipment.
But Whitehall sources are concerned that the move is motivated by the DTI's need to slash its civil service workforce by a quarter as part of the government's efficiency agenda, and human rights experts fear it could hinder transparency over weapons deals.
A DTI spokesman this week confirmed that ministers are considering 'as part of our overall efficiency programme how best to carry out our export licensing functions'.
Public Finance sources said the switch to a privatised, or a part-privatised, body would appeal to ministers because it would contribute towards the DTI's target of reducing its civil service head count by 1,480 by 2008.
One said: 'It would be a simple, but effective, trick and it would mean few job cuts because most ECO staff would be transferred.'
However, the pressure group Amnesty International said it would have 'grave concerns' about the potential loss of accountability if private firms could determine how export licensing, which often involves weapons deals, was carried out.
PFmar2005
