A limit to how far we can go with cost-cutting
I REFER to the letter in the Guernsey Press on 4 March 2017, penned by Deputy Richard Graham, entitled 'Budget should be considered in light of new figures on economic health'. How refreshing it was to read some common sense views from one of our politicians. Unfortunately, I didn't listen to the BBC Guernsey phone-in on 26 February, in which he made his original comments, but reading his letter it seems to me that he is absolutely correct in what he is saying.
Deputy Graham highlights that recently released economic figures indicate that the island is doing far better than was initially predicted. That is excellent news and those responsible for fiscal management both at political and departmental levels should be applauded. However, there is a limit as to how far cutting costs can be sustained. I am not saying that there wasn't room for improvement within States departments' spending – there most definitely was. In some areas, large sums of public money were being wasted due to duplication, poor working practices and bad management. These areas quite rightly needed to be addressed and indeed budgets in some areas undoubtedly needed scrutinising and controlling – even, in some cases, reducing. However, I feel that the one-size-fits-all approach to States departments' budget cuts isn't balanced and seems to completely disregard the nature of the work being undertaken by individual departments.
The three main States departments, Health, Education and Law Enforcement, have seen their budgets cut year-on-year for the past three years already under the Financial Transformation Programme, resulting, in my opinion, in significant reductions in public services. I expect that most politicians and department heads won't publicly agree with me on this point, but I have seen it with my own eyes from within, so I know that services provided now are less than they were three years ago, and if the current policy continues, we have at least another two years of cuts.
These three departments' budgets are primarily made up of staffing costs, it therefore doesn't take a mathematician to work out that the first and easiest cut to make is personnel. Some of these departments are now understaffed by such a significant extent that even some basic responsibilities aren't being undertaken. This is where I repeat what I said earlier – a one size fits all approach isn't balanced or sustainable. It would be interesting to see actual figures from the last three years as to staffing numbers from those three departments.
There will always be those who will say that we should doggedly continue on for the greater good regardless of the current status, including the editor of The Guernsey Press, according to his comment printed on the same day as Deputy Graham's letter, but it must surely be good governance to review policies periodically? What was fit for purpose three years ago may not be fit for purpose now. I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, there would be immediate steps taken to amend spending policies. Surely the same should happen now?
I said earlier that there is a limit as to how far public service budgets can be cut – and I ask how far our politicians are going to let it go before it becomes irretrievable. My personal view is that we have gone far enough with cuts – capping budgets, yes – properly managing budgets, yes – but continued cuts will only result in one thing – a steady decline in the services provided by our government.
The States of Deliberation have an opportunity to review where the islands' finances stand at their June sitting, I would urge them to grasp this opportunity. As Deputy Graham states, 'I'm not advocating we all dress for a party and abandon the objective. Nor is it about going wobbly over fiscal discipline, it's about distinguishing means from ends, plans from objectives'.
M. R. HARRIS,
St Peter Port.
