Skip to main content

The origin and use of the £20 million savings

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

1240/5(3102)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY, 21st NOVEMBER 2006

Question

With regard to the £20 million savings that were due to be made in order to help fill the black hole', would the Minister give precise details of where the £20 million was taken from and exact details of what it has been decided to use it for?

Would the Minister also advise what consultation took place with States' members with regard to the change of use of the £20 million and why the change was not subject to a States' debate ?

Answer

Where are the savings being made?

The programme of £20 million efficiency savings relate to the Change Programme and the detailed allocations of these savings by programme area have been agreed by the Council of Ministers as part of the Annual Business Plan 2007, and are shown at Table 4.4 on page 31 as follows -

 

Programme Area

2005 £' 000

2006 £' 000

2007 2008 2009 Total £' 000 £' 000 £' 000 £' 000

Corporate Efficiencies

300 500 206 150

400 440 494 300

- - - 700

- - - 940

427 - - 1,127

750 700 -  1,900

Human Resources Information Technology Finance

Procurement

Total Support Services

Cross-Departmental Executive  Overheads

Property

- Revenue

- Capital

1,156

120 -

- -

1,634

120 -

400 -

1,177 700 - 4,667

120 120 - 480

330 330 - 660

500 600 - 1,500

700 1,600 1,700 4,000

Total Corporate Efficiencies Departmental Efficiencies

Target

1,276 4,724

2,154 1,846

2,827 3,350 1,700 11,307 1,173 650 300 8,693

6,000

4,000

4,000 4,000 2,000 20,000

These amounts have then been removed from the budgets of individual departments according to an agreed allocation basis. For example, in 2007 the allocation of the £4 million saving is made up of £3.3 million from departments revenue budgets (as shown in Table 4.1 on page 26 of the Annual Business Plan 2007) and £0.7 million as capital receipts within the 2007 Capital Programme,(Summary table C page 58).

Extract from Table 4.1 - 2007 Revenue efficiency savings

Efficiency Savings

2007 States Funded Bodies £'000

Ministerial Departments

Chief Minister 105.3

- Grant to the Overseas Aid Commission -

Economic Development (98.4) Education, Sport and Culture (340.9) Health and Social Services (948.5) Home Affairs (226.9) Housing 5.2 Planning and Environment (50.9) Social Security (32.3) Transport and Technical Services (192.3) Treasury and Resources (1,358.0) Non-Ministerial States Funded Bodies

- Bailiff 's Chamber (8.6)

- Law Officers' Department (37.6)

- Judicial Greffe (33.9)

- Viscount's Department (13.6)

- Official Analyst (4.3)

- Office of the Lieutenant Governor (7.7)

- Office of the Dean of Jersey (0.1)

- Data Protection Commission (1.1)

- Probation Department (9.8)

- Comptroller and Auditor General (5.1) States Assembly (40.5) Total Revenue Efficiency Savings (3,300.0)

Property – capital receipts ( 7 0 0 .0 )

Total Efficiency Savings 2007   ( 4 ,0 0 0 . 0 )  

What are the savings being reinvested in?

The Council of Ministers made it quite clear that the States Strategic Plan looks to maintain Jersey's position of pre-eminence in the international arena – "In order to compete in the face of growing competition we must protect and improve the level of services and investment in social, environmental and economic initiatives". The Council also made clear that this must be achieved within a sustainable financial framework.

This investment began with the prioritisation of savings as part of the resource allocation processes for 2005 and 2006, predominantly to growth and pressures in health and social welfare, as described in the respective budget documents. Most recently the investment in the outcomes of the Strategic Plan review were proposed and approved in the 2007 Business Plan, in Table 4.2, page 28 as follows -

Extract from Annual Business Plan 2007 Table 4.2 Strategic Plan Outcomes

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 £m £m £m £m £m

Strategic Plan Initiatives

Economic Growth Plan

Education, Sport and Culture

Vocational and Tertiary (adult skills) Home Affairs

Discrimination Legislation

Emerging Pressures

Social Security

Parish Welfare increases Education, Sport and Culture

Teachers Pension Deficit

Opera House Loan

Impacts of Fiscal Changes

Treasury and Resources

Administering GST

Social Security

Insulating those on low incomes from GST Transitional costs of income support scheme


1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

- - 1.50 3.00 4.50

1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

1.50 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

- 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

3.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

4.00 7.75 6.75 6.75 6.75

Total Strategic Plan Review 8.00 11.75 12.25 13.75 15.25

States debate on investment of £20 million savings

The investment of the £20 million efficiency savings was highlighted in the States Strategic Plan and therefore in the States debate in June 2006, and also in the Annual Business Plan debate in September. However, the States had in effect previously agreed this principle in the 2005 and 2006 Budget debates.

In each of the 2005 and 2006 Budgets the detailed make up of the Committee allocations included savings found from both service reductions and efficiency savings. These savings enabled the real growth in priority services of health and social welfare to be achieved within overall growth in spending of 2.5% in these years.

2005 2 0 0 6   B u d g e t B u d g e t

£ '0 0 0 £ ' 0 0 0  

Efficiency savings ( 6 ,0 00) ( 4 ,0 0 0 ) Service reduction ( 6 ,1 7 3) ( 3 ,0 6 6 ) Total savings   ( 1 2 ,1 7 3 ) (7 , 0 6 6) Growth in services 1 3 , 793 9 ,5 9 8  

The States has therefore been informed and could be seen to have had the opportunity to debate the "investment" of efficiency savings on at least four occasions.