No culture of saving in the States
OVER the last few days, the head of the UK's civil service has given a couple of rare on-the-record interviews to warn that the government faces a much tighter spending environment.
OVER the last few days, the head of the UK's civil service has given a couple of rare on-the-record interviews to warn that the government faces a much tighter spending environment.
In particular, Sir Gus O'Donnell raised three possibilities: that civil servants had to be ready to cope with much less money being available, that the Canadian government's 1990s response to recession by slicing 20% off budgets holds some lessons today, and that a revolution was needed in the way individual departments are funded because cross department issues are not being tackled efficiently.
In addition, other government figures have made the point that after years of increased expenditure on public services, perhaps it was time for the spending pendulum to swing back.
Many islanders would see those comments as having relevance here. After all, the last 20 years has seen hugely increased staffing levels within the States, an explosion of public services and a lot of money poured into new buildings.
Has all that been spent wisely? Far from it. As consultants Tribal Helm discovered, a financially profligate culture was allowed to develop. Put another way, deputies and their advisers actively looked for ways to spend taxpayers' money.
Yet far from embracing the opportunity provided by current economic conditions to cut expenditure and give the taxpayer a break, no one in the States is giving a clear lead on meaningful cuts in payroll costs, including ending the unaffordable public sector pension schemes.
Instead, what deputies are itching to do is increase taxes still further so their spending spree can continue.
An illustration of government's mind-set is revealed in a letter sent by Health and Social Services to all its staff. Yes, it says, there is a need to spend less and HSSD must review all areas to see what savings can be made.
But there will be no redundancies, staff released by service reductions will be redeployed and the problem is really the States not giving it enough money in the first place.
What it really says is that the department will pay lip-service to the need for economies - but do nothing significant to make any.
