Fog creates perfect conditions for those resistant to change

IT FEELS horribly as if the cost-cutting drive that was the Financial Transformation Programme is fading away with something of a whimper.

This should, though, be the time that those involved in the scrutiny of its success or otherwise should be roaring, not waiting for the months and years to pass.

Those behind it can claim success. Although short of target, stripping £28.7m. a year out of States spending can be called that – if, indeed, that is what it has done.

But there is mounting evidence that the FTP was and remains a tale of lost opportunities – that success could have been so much greater.

When the final report into it was released by the Policy Council, it spelled out starkly that projects which required cross-departmental savings to be made failed – because they failed, there were consequences. Either other areas were hit instead, such as extra charges to the public, or ones where cuts are less robust, or that money simply wasn't saved and we all pay as a result.

Now if there was any real leadership and accountability here, these cross-departmental projects would be picked up and run with – they remain as savings to be made. Instead, ministers want to move on and refocus. No doubt many in the States feel the same way, perhaps exhausted, feeling that it is job done and time to get on with less-stressful projects that look better on the political CV.

The Public Accounts Committee should be acting as the strong arm for the public here.

Instead it is coming across as somewhat muted, so far at least, and all rather after the party has finished.

Its work so far is valuable, and we may well hear more, but whatever happened to scrutiny being about timeliness? Because with that in mind, and the fact it was receiving regular reports on the FTP's progress, should its interventions not have been much more proactive?

It has released its assessment based on an independent review of nine of the major projects and promised more – these new reports will fall into the lessons-have-been-learned territory. By the time the States gets around to learning these lessons, it may well have moved on anyway.

At the moment, PAC says it is too early to say whether the FTP represents value for money.

It also questions whether in some instances the savings made are sustainable.

The committee's consultants, KPMG, also paint a picture of departments playing a tactical game to meet annual targets rather than embed genuine transformation.

It just feels horribly like it was a case of picking at low-hanging fruit that was not too painful and then getting back to business as usual, all the while assuming that a few years down the line no one will be able to tell whether a saving is a saving at all.

They could do this because of the rule change instigated when it was clear the FTP was failing.

Money was not being saved as it should have been early in the process, costing the taxpayer each year.

When it started, the FTP had a long list of projects detailing how much each would save.

Just a few years in, this list was dropped and departments were left to their own devices – or empowered, if you want to be more positive.

With that, the public had no way of knowing whether money was being saved in the right areas or whether those savings were sustainable.

It was perfect for those resistant to change because it created a fog.

Those areas identified back in 2009 have been, it seems, confined to history as too difficult to handle.

Some of them might not have worked, some of the other areas tackled instead might have been better, but at this rate we will never know.

There is a focus from Policy Council and Public Accounts alike on what has happened, but no one politically seems to be asking the question that really matters now – what has been lost?

Both should have in their possession information on projects that have been dropped and why, or those that failed to hit the targets promised.

Who knows, one day the public might be furnished with this knowledge and given the ability to scrutinise the decision-making process involved, especially given the public promises made and the taxpayer funds involved.

Some of the projects went for Policy Council approval because they were controversial and, despite having released background papers on the 'fake' saving budget transfer, ministers have so far blocked an information request to release others on the grounds it would interfere with the PAC review. Now PAC has released its report, those papers should be published – given next week's States debate, to not do so ahead of it would be doing the public a disservice.

It and PAC have also declined to release quarterly reports on the FTP, which crucially should detail projects departments dropped.

Again, there can now be no justification for withholding this information, which would help inform next week's proceedings.

It is a shame, too, that PAC's planned public hearings will not take place until after the States debate – they could have been key to informing and shaping proceedings in the chamber.

The FTP debate should not simply become a back-patting, self-congratulatory exercise.

Acknowledge success, yes, but don't just pay lip service to the failures and chances that have not

been taken.