Deputies query ease of access to £26m. fund
COMMITTEES face ‘significant barriers’ when accessing money from a fund created to transform public services and two deputies want an investigation into whether the application processes are fit for purpose.
Deputies Emilie Yerby and Dawn Tindall have submitted an amendment to the Policy & Resource Plan.
If successful, it will direct the States’ senior committee to re-evaluate the criteria for access to the Transformation and Transition Fund and report back in the 2019 Budget.
The fund was established in 2014 with a budget of £26.7m., which included transfers from the Fundamental Spending Review Fund and the Strategic Development Fund.
‘About half the balance of the fund – £12.4m. – has been prioritised across a range of areas, but only £5.5m. has been approved, and only £3.4m. spent,’ the deputies behind the amendment said.
‘At 31 December 2017, after three years of operation, the balance of the fund was £23.3m., or 87% of its original level.
‘Anecdotally, it seems that principal committees face significant barriers to accessing finance from the Transformation and Transition Fund to support initiatives which should fall within its scope.
‘This would appear to be substantiated by the slow rate of spending on the fund.
‘Four years after the establishment of the fund, it is timely for P&R to review how it operates, and whether the processes and criteria surrounding it are effective, or whether they inhibit it achieving its intended function.’
When it was created, the intention was for the fund to be used for initiatives which demonstrated long-term transformation in the delivery of policy and services, had measurable benefits and would provide a return on the investment.
Policy & Resources has delegated authority to approve funding for projects that have included the new population management system and developing an energy policy.
Deputy Yerby has submitted a separate amendment to the P&R Plan, seconded by Deputy Sarah Hansmann Rouxel.
If approved, it would drop the requirement committees have to work with P&R to develop performance indicators and metrics for priority work streams.
‘The proposers of this amendment support the principle of performance measurement, but will argue that the process outlined here will add undue bureaucracy and divert resources from more pressing work at this stage.’
