> She's not on a £2k/day salary, that's just the rate paid to Capita, a consulting company.
The point is that the state foots a £2000/day bill to replace a civil servant who'd be paid what, 10% of that? For a total cost of 20% including charges and the like? Which is an odd move if the goal is to reduce costs.
The point is that the state foots a £2000/day bill to replace a civil servant who'd be paid what, 10% of that?
The trouble with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that you could actually hire someone with the skills necessary to fix the much-maligned IT facilities of a major government department for a salary to them of, say, £30k. Given that someone with those skills has a market rate that is an order of magnitude higher than that, this seems implausible.
If this person is actually competent to do the job, then given the amount of money the MoD can expect to save as a direct result of changes she brings in, the rate they're paying is reasonable. It may be politically awkward, because the average voter probably doesn't understand the economics involved, but that's a different issue.
I completely agree, I was mostly pointing out nitpicking on what goes to the consulting company versus the actual employee is not relevant to the article.
> The point is that the state foots a £2000/day bill to replace a civil servant who'd be paid what, 10% of that?
30% (according to the article - 500k pa vs. 150k pa).
In any case, it's a new role that didn't exist before, so there's naturally a lot of set-up effort. It makes sense to get a more experienced person before hiring someone definitively.
You can't compare 500k pa on a short term contract with 150k pa on a permanent civil service contract.
That 150k comes with a fantastic pension (final salary!), they have to pay employer taxes, insurances etc. Not to mention that they're almost impossible to fire.
For a permanent employee, don't forget the employer NI contributions, pension, paid holiday, possibly maternity pay, expenses, etc. So maybe the total cost for a permanent employee would be 40-50% of the contracter
Did you read the article? This is for the CIO... the C.I.O of the MoD she isn't some project management office admin clerk, she has previously been the CIO of the Post Office too, so is well qualified in the matter.
The point is that the state foots a £2000/day bill to replace a civil servant who'd be paid what, 10% of that? For a total cost of 20% including charges and the like? Which is an odd move if the goal is to reduce costs.