Reading the runes on Tribal Helm
Tuesday 11th August 2009, 12:34PM BST.
over the last few days, this newspaper has been commenting on aspects of the States of Guernsey’s currently wholly ineffective approach towards cost containment and the unacceptable burden that it is placing on islanders at a particularly difficult time.
The complacency is endemic and has been highlighted – and ignored – over the years, including savings recommended by the Audit Commission, which was deemed too independent and too outspoken to be allowed to continue beyond 2004.
Virtually every spending test government has faced, it has flunked or failed: paid parking and school closure being just two recent ones.
Now it is facing two rather more challenging ones, phase two of the Tribal Helm fundamental spending review and what it does with Health and Social Services’ determination to overspend.
Both are critical to this island’s future as a comparatively low tax jurisdiction and also to the credibility of government.
Spending at HSSD is out of control. The minister’s admission that they cannot remain in budget is proof of that. In addition, the cost of off island placements is running away even more freely. Although the States put the so-called formula-led expenditures in the ‘too difficult’ drawer by removing departmental responsibility for them, the point remains that HSSD is not in control of what it spends.
It is only because the taxpayer will be forced to meet any overspend that administrators are not being called in and serious questions asked about the level of governance of a £100m. operation.
But then there is little financial discipline in the States and no effective accountability. That is why the Treasury minister can claim that a 7.4% increase in payroll costs means job growth ‘has not been excessive’.
Phase two of Tribal Helm, which is due next month, will also be a seminal moment.
Will the document reveal a corporate determination to reduce staff numbers and take significant levels of cost out of the public sector or will it be a do nothing document dressed up to look like modest measures deliverable over a reasonable timescale?
If the Health minister’s contribution to ‘restraint’ is indicative of the rest of the Policy Council, the signs are not encouraging.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
For all the talk and all the promises at the time of the general election and for all the talk and all the promises during the zero ten debate here we are with States department after States department claiming no savings are possible. Indeed, we should be grateful that the increases in expenditure are not much greater.
I’m watching and listening to the spendthrift Ministers – I hope everybody else is, too, it’s our future welfare they’re dealing with. I’m afraid that most of the putative electorate seems to be more concerned about the minor details of life in Guernsey. Please, Guernsey Press, try to keep this most important issue in the news.
Report abuse
“But then there is little financial discipline in the States”
Is that the same sort of discipline we have seen in the finance industry that has created massive taxpayer debts around the world and enabling the industry to facilitate the double whammy of not only putting tax payer money in their pocket, without elected mandate like the Iraq war, but the institutions that are making hay from this exploitation are also using jurisdictions like ours to avoid paying tax on their income?
Yet you continue to bash providers of care. I know there’s nothing we can do about external events, but your tone insults those that are actually trying to better the lives of the vulnerable and not just themselves.
If low tax is “sacrosanct” then the politicians must just be honest. If your needs are not able to be met by the core service, you will have to pay. List those services. Put those who are worrying out of their misery so they can start planning to sell their house, or their kidneys, to pay for it.
Report abuse
Arnald
Are you seriously saying that if the civil service was indeed found to be inefficient, as many suspect, so that numerous jobs could be cut, we should not do so ? Why should the taxpayer pay for such ineffeciencies ? The savings could help to pay to build Les Beaucamps, build a new sewage treatment plant or even assist with funding vital clinical work in the health service. Nobody is suggesting, as far as I am aware, that vital services are cut. Indeed the very opposite, that non-essential jobs be cut/merged to result in savings for the taxpayer.
You seem worried that this merely shifts the taxpayer burden from paying civil service salaries to social services, but that’s not logical. The island has had full employment bat around 200 people on average for several years. As a result we have had to import labour from Madeira, Latvia and now Lithuania to fill jobs otherwise unable to be filled by locals in retail, hospitality and other sectors of the economy. Surely if unemployment rose through a reduction of public sector jobs then we would simply need to import less labour ? I have no idea how many immigrants are on 9-month licences, but would 1,000 be about right ? If we lost 300 public sector jobs then we would just need to import 300 fewer workers. Seems pretty straightforward to me, and isn’t that precisely why we have 9-month housing licences?
And have you noticed that the bailout of banks to which you refer is barely costing the governments anything now. The UK governments bailout of RBS breaks even at a 50p share price and that’s very nearly where we are. At £1 the state coffers will be massively boosted. It helps to put things into proper perspective does it not ?
Report abuse
I think before we all get to excited about the Tribal Helm review you should wait for the report, the sound of back peddling is deafening at present in the corridors of Frossard House as the original massive savings that were announced in blazing headlines on the front of the press all those months ago do not appear to be so obvious. Could this be that many departments are already running much leaner than the public imagine and in some cases struggling to provide all the services the public demand. I think many of you will be surprised when the final report is published just how over the top the original predictions were.
Report abuse
David
Maybe the perspective you should take is the rising social cost in the UK. Those at the bottom lose out first, unemployable until they die, the younger ones become entrenched in cycles of poverty and crime. Oh yeah, and the heaps of bad debt, completely unquantifiable with any accuracy. Do you not think that as a ‘sophisticated’ industry it would know what was what had it exerted some discipline instead of feeding their addictions, hmm?
Of course we’ll be cushioned as we serve the wealthy, they don’t care because the markets offer ‘opportunity’ for those with money to make more money. Fair play. It’s a niche that needs servicing.
As for the rest of your post: efficiency savings are one thing, but as Dep Jones points out, exactly how many millions? I think you’re dreaming, David, that capital infrastructure projects will be tendered left, right and centre because the States managed to lose a receptionist and a porter. Reducing services cannot be done with such glib confidence that declining morale in both the service and the public won’t further raise disaffectation with our political system, unable to make themselves heard above the self congratulationary balls and awards ceremonies.
But then that doesn’t matter, does it? Only the bottom line, which means cuts.
The truth is, throughout the gobsmacked period following the disclosure that the banks had been utterly contemptuous with their presumptions and models, there has only been recognition in the industry for their own market share of the feast of public money, those ivory towers were not taken down – normal service resumes. You know best, I’m sure, but it’s insulting to those that are doing the caring and social cohesion work to suggest they are pushed beyond their limit for less money.
Oh yeah, and will they introduce the minimum wage if they plan on ‘nudging’ the public sector staff into the hotels?
Report abuse
David – Not one single thing you mention in your post is as “straightforward” as you think. Please don’t ask me to explain I have a feeling I’d be wasting my time.
Dave Jones – I don’t really think the TH phase 1 was that scathing was it? The GP interpreted and subsequently reported the report in it’s usual extreme way. It will be interesting to see if the GP engages in any of the back peddling you mention.
On another note I had to phone a company run by a local businessman who has been in the GP a lot recently criticising States decisions and sorting out Cobo. The delivery they promised me 4weeks ago still hasn’t materialised. Perhaps it’s time to look closer to home when they’re deciding which problem to solve next.
The point I’m trying to make is that some of the States biggest critics, including the GP, are not always occupying the high ground.
Report abuse
Lest we forget. Nearly all our present clutch of deputies were asserting that savings had to be made if we were to cope with zero-ten and that they believed that much could be done by cutting out waste and superfluousness in States operations. They shouldn’t now be claiming they got it all wrong and that not only is there nothing to cut but that even greater extravagance is needed.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’m only talking about identifying areas where there is over-capacity or wastage. If there are no savings possible, after investigation, then at least everyone knows that its been investigated. It seems to me that there is a reluctance for a review to be carried out to see if any savings can be made. If you are so confident that there is no scope for savings, then what’s the problem ? If on the other hand you are trying to justify the retention of all jobs just because people are already employed, then that’s ridiculous.
Cliff
Your experiences re. a private sector delivery company are I am sure very common, but natural market forces will sort that one out. You will obviously choose to use a different supplier in the future and the owner of the business suffers through reduced profits/lost business. That’s his perogative as he is not answerable to the taxpayer for his poor service, which is clearly very different to any public sector service.
Report abuse
I`ve only just come to realise what it all means regarding tightening their belts and reduce spending. They meant us, the public so they can carry on and spend all the savings we make by giving it to them. And like the rest of Guernsey i was thinking THEY were going to make some savings, silly ole me. This is this best government we ever had :( .
Report abuse