Saving £6.5m. will focus the minds of States
Friday 28th October 2011, 2:29PM BST.
ASKING the States to save £6.5m. next year should encourage the government to engage fully with the Financial Transformation Programme, the chief accountant said yesterday.
Bethan Haines (pictured) said deputies had agreed to deliver the efficiency drive over the course of five years in order to meet the £31m. or more target.
‘We want to deliver the FTP and this is trying to incentivise everyone to engage with the programme.
‘The imperative is to reduce our deficit now and not in two or three years time.’
Only £5m. of the £31m. has so far been recouped, with £26m. remaining.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Thursday 23 February
- Recycling and export is the way forward for waste
- UK mail will arrive later
- Free motoring supplement
- Herm prepares for summer
- Win a night at the White House
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
Stop talking rubbish and address the devaluation issue!
Report abuse
Oh for heavens sake what a stupid statement! Aren’t they, the politicians, supposed to concentrate on the expenditure that they charge us the ratepayers to wisely distribute? Perhaps not – it is probably a game to them!
Report abuse
The politicians could easily spend £100 million so why would they focus on saving £6.5million – maybe if we tied they hands behind their backs and tape around their mouths. LOL
Report abuse
Well the airport project could have been done for many millions less – they could easily have saved £6.5m several times over and reduced the impact on the public, the roads and the natural environment into the bargain. I really don’t understand how they have managed to get away with this.
Report abuse
I agree Roquaine. How many people are calling for these savings on the one hand, while never insisting that Guernsey robustly defend its reasons for minimal alterations to the runway layout (over and above the necessary repair work) in order to keep the project costs to a minimum.
And how many people will now squeal about the forthcoming cuts while blissfully ignoring what could be saved at the airport if more people spoke out about the lunacy of embarking on a large capital project like this without ensuring all efforts were made from the beginning to keep the project of a size appropriate to Guernsey. Bonkers!
Report abuse
Rosie – because it ticks the right box.
And I agree its all utter madness.
Report abuse
Rosie
my back of a fag packet calculations ( which I understand is the preferred States method in order to reduce IT costs ) suggests to me that only doing the necessary works to upgrade the runway without moving or ‘extending’ it would save about £15m ….. giving us 2 years grace before we plunge headlong into the black hole …
Report abuse
The problem is that the Airport should have been given a budget of 30m and then told to work backwards from that.
The airport costs can be broken into parts
(1)To protect the water supply
(2)Parts directly related to the leveling and extension to the runway.
(1) Can we really be confident the airport water collection will prevent contamination when tested in real life? Controls on substances and a De-salination back up or a water pipe network between Jersey/Guernsey/France would be a robust approach and provide protection in a severe drought.
(2) The leveling is not required nor is the extension.
The airport project group should be culling £60m from the project scope.
Finally when it comes to safety EMAS is something we can install when the costs come down.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon,
Your last post is a load of tosh,I suggest you have a chat with the CAA before posting such drivel!
Report abuse
@Kevin
Yes I suppose an airport project with a set budget would seem like a load of tosh if you work for PSD.
Responsibility for directives will rest with EU aviation bodies rather than the CAA. Not even the Guernsey Flying Club knows its future regulatory body next year.
Nevertheless PSD have not fought for waivers from the CAA for the majority of works. PSD admit this. The CAA are not unreasonable, financial constraint is a valid mitigating factor.
No doubt you would agree that we should be spending more evenly on airport infrastructure over the economic cycle.
Report abuse
Toby,
I would suspect that to be a conservative estimate.
Report abuse