Transformation savings a tale of lost opportunities

THERE are many ways to read the end-of-term report on the Financial Transformation Programme.

The optimist, i.e. anyone whose political reputation is staked on it being a success, will shout about £28m.-worth of savings that will be banked year after year, with potentially more to come, saying that it has led to a cultural change within the States.

That was very much the orchestrated message coming from Frossard House for those who do not have the time or inclination to examine the report in detail.

The real optimist will stand in front of the electorate and argue that spending is under control.

There is another very different tale to tell, though, and it is one of lost opportunities.

Because so few savings were made in the first couple of years of the programme, a sizeable amount of taxpayers' money was spent that should not have been.

By now all the savings made should add up to around £70m., in fact the States delivered some £55m.

It makes grim reading, too, for those who like to talk up the joint working within this States.

This argument just does not stand up to scrutiny.

The FTP was clear at the outset that significant savings were to be made through cross-department work – some £15m. a year.

In the end it delivered just £3.1m., a worrying message to give taxpayers.

Instead it appears that departments opted for the path of least resistance, favouring moves such as increasing charges instead of making true efficiencies.

The Policy Council expects more savings from this cross-cutting initiative, but only £5m.

So what has happened to the rest? Is that £7m. of waste that just stays in the system because the States has moved on to pastures new?

At the moment we have no idea what else was put in the too-difficult pile.

The programme became opaque as it moved on.

Initially there was a list of projects and how much each one would save.

That was dropped in favour of simply giving departments tougher budgets to meet – they could come up with any idea they wanted.

It was empowering, but there was no way for the public to tell whether what they did or did not do was the best solution.

Instead we are left with a long list of pretty meaningless three- or four-word project descriptions, how much they saved and what type of savings there were.

Nothing to say if they hit expectations or not. Nothing to really say what efficiency savings, say, at the schools' library service actually means.

The end-of-term report makes little mention of the findings in the independent report that the FTP was based on and how what the States achieved measures up to what was expected.

Starkly, there was nothing about what the States budget was predicted to now stand at in total and what it does – something that might have shown if the savings that were made have simply been offset by spiralling staff costs.

The Public Accounts Committee is currently working on its own review of the FTP – let's hope it has the critical analysis that is lacking so far, tracking that link between what was expected and what was delivered.

Are the savings really savings at all? What opportunities have been lost along the way and why?

We know there has already been difficulty in getting the information to answer the questions it is posing – not a great sign.

Much of the talk of where to move now has focused on more cultural change in the States – something you could call FTP-lite.

That is the easy option perhaps, certainly with an organisation that does not do change well and has not liked the pressure the FTP brought, but there is no guarantee for the public at the moment that spending is under control.

There is a very real danger that unless the PAC report is the catalyst for a more forensic look at spending, that normal service will be resumed simply because the focus has shifted, the belief creeps in that the work has all been done.

Of course, no senior figure is going to stand up and say that publicly, because the message has to be about what the States has done, not what it has not.

But the world has changed, and in fairness so has the way the States works, since Tribal examined spending back in 2009.

That may well open up even more opportunities which those within the system are blind to.

There is nothing planned, either, to check on how sustainable the savings made under the FTP are. As the years go by, will they continue to deliver? Will anyone bother to look?

The review under way at Health and Social Services comparing its spending with other jurisdictions will at least prompt a public debate about its budget, yet other big spenders do not have to go through the same level of forensic scrutiny.

There is still no sign of zero-based budgets – oft promised by Treasury but never delivered as departments favour the ability to simply spend as before with a little bit extra each year.

Next month's debate on the FTP should not become a collective backslapping exercise.

It is a shame that the PAC has not managed to deliver its report yet to help inform the discussion, but that was always promised ahead of the States meeting, so watch this space.

It is a shame, too, that the Policy Council has blocked this newspaper's information requests surrounding the FTP because it did not want to prejudice the PAC report.

Helpfully, that meant it could release its FTP analysis into a vacuum.

This is not the end of the debate on States cost-cutting.