Report - Government Plan Efficiencies Review Panel - Review of Efficiencies and Government Plan 2021-2024 Rebalancing Measures - 14 December 2020

Review of the Efficiencies Plan and Government Plan 2021- 2024 Rebalancing Measures

Government Efficiencies Review Panel

14th December 2020 S.R.17/2020

Contents

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCIES PLAN REVIEW PANEL MEMBERSHIP .............................3 CHAIR'S FOREWORD ............................................................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................6 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................9 THE EFFICIENCIES PLAN 2020-2023 .................................................................................13 IMPACT OF EFFICIENCIES/REBALANCING PROGRAMME .............................................27 REVIEWING AND MONITORING .........................................................................................39 LISTENING TO ISLANDERS ................................................................................................42 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................45

APPENDIX 1 – ANSWER TO SCRUTINY QUESTION AT THE REQUEST OF THE EFFICIENCIES REVIEW PANEL AND CORPORATE SERVICES SCRUTINY PANEL .....46

APPENDIX 2 – EXAMPLES OF PLANS A/B/C IN THE GOVERNMENT PLAN 2021-2024

 ...............................................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX 3 – LETTER FROM CHIEF MINISTER TO THE EFFICIENCIES REVIEW PANEL, 1 OCTOBER 2020 ...................................................................................................50

APPENDIX 4 – LETTER FROM CHIEF MINISTER TO THE EFFICEINCIES REVIEW PANEL, 30 OCTOBER 2020 .................................................................................................57

APPENDIX 5 – WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE GATHERED ...............................................66

Government Efficiencies Plan Review Panel membership

The Review Panel comprised the following States Members

Deputy Geoff Southern

Deputy Mike Higgins

Connétable Richard Vibert

Chair

Chair's Foreword

The Review Panel is firmly of the belief that the key drivers for efficiencies should be to reduce waste, duplication of work, and to utilise and maximise use of the considerable assets of the States of Jersey. Islanders want to see Government spending on the areas that matter most to them – including health, education, training and skills, the environment, protecting the vulnerable and delivering a strong economy with diverse job opportunities.

Equally, Islanders are keen to ensure that any efficiencies don't widen the inequality gap or further disadvantage those who already have the least. It is important to remember, when considering the Government's aggressive drive for efficiencies, especially for savings in health,  education  and  children's  services,  that  this  comes  against  a  backdrop  of  the Government's borrowing strategy which has been formulated to help finance the cost of Covid- 19, estimated to exceed £400 million, in addition to infrastructure investment including the building of the future hospital, which is projected to cost over £800 million.[1]

The Review Panel is aware there is a need to reduce costs, and of course it accepts that there is a need for some borrowing but it is concerned that the greater the borrowing, the longer it will take to service and repay and the more pressure there will be to continue to deliver an aggressive  efficiencies  programme,  further  disenfranchising  the  most  vulnerable  in  our community. The Review Panel has seen little evidence of how the Government's proposed efficiencies complement the Common Strategic Priorities:

1. Put Children First;
2. Improve Islander's wellbeing and mental and physical health;
3. Create a sustainable, vibrant economy;
4. Reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living; and
5. Protect and value our environment

Neither has it seen a concerted effort on behalf of the Government to maximise the potential of the assets it already owns, including a huge property portfolio worth approximately £1 billion. By not delivering an asset strategy, it is still spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on maintaining disused property and keeping hold of property which otherwise could have been sold to make up the shortfall of revenue caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead of repurposing existing buildings for office use or putting our estate to better use for the community, it leases privately owned properties, wasting even more money. We rent premises at 28-30 The Parade, at over £1.1 million a year for the next 4 years and yet the Government is asking for the care-leavers programme, a service to help children leaving residential care to find homes, to be reduced by £100,000.[2]

The Review Panel is concerned that the Government displays profligacy on the one hand, for example by renting premises outside its already vast estate, and penny-pinching on the other by reducing some services to the already hard-hit Islanders – the continuation of an aggressive efficiencies programme can only lead to cuts in services. We strongly recommend that the Government does not impose any efficiency which runs counter to improving Islanders' wellbeing and their standard of living.

Executive Summary

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the economy and it has made it extremely difficult for the Efficiencies Review Panel to track the efficiencies originally identified, especially as the Government removed the identified savings from the departmental budgets, then, as the Covid-19 pandemic took hold, merged its ongoing efficiencies plan into a rebalancing' programme. This changed how the 2021 Efficiencies programme would be developed. Where departments could not meet the efficiencies originally agreed, they were expected to deliver alternative efficiencies (described by the Chief Minister as Plan B'), or adopt Plan C', which was to defer projects or growth expenditure in order to get across the line' of achieving efficiencies.

The Review Panel was originally established to receive 6-monthly reports from the Board, then publish a 6-monthly report of the Panel's findings to the States Assembly. However, with the onset of Covid-19, the Efficiencies Programmes Board Director advised that the pursuit of the Efficiencies Programme, namely the delivery of £40 million of efficiencies identified in the Government Plan, and the identification of £20 million of efficiencies to be delivered in 2021, had been fundamentally impacted, rendering the original assumptions on which the Efficiencies Programme was based, invalid'.

The Efficiencies Review Panel therefore needed to also reconsider its approach. It agreed it would need to refocus its time on trying to not only monitor the efficiencies already made but also try to investigate the ongoing drive for efficiencies, now termed rebalancing'. Those investigations inform this Report.

The Efficiencies Review Panel takes issue with the way in which the figure of £40 million of efficiency savings for 2020 had been arrived at. It would seem as though it was identified as the target amount rather than analysis being undertaken regarding what could be reasonably achieved[3] and appeared to be a series of aspirational targets for the Government to impose[4] upon departments.

The Review Panel has seen little evidence of planned efficiencies aligning with the Common Strategic Priorities that the States Assembly signed up to, in particular Putting Children First', Reduce Income Inequality or Improve Islander's Wellbeing'. Furthermore, the results of surveys and other feedback from Islanders have been largely ignored, in the Government's pursuit of efficiency savings. The Review Panel found that the Government paid scant regard to people's concerns about where savings could be made without further detriment to Islanders most in need.

The lack of detailed analysis behind the business cases for efficiencies was also a major concern. There is little evidence that the ongoing programme of rebalancing measures is based on a strict value for money approach, or that it has been weighed in favour of closing the inequality gap. Rather, it is the opinion of the Efficiencies Review Panel that many efficiencies or rebalancing measures have been driven by the acute demand for the realisation of cashable savings to bridge the budget setting gap, irrespective of the impact on vulnerable members of the public.

Summary of findings and recommendations

Key Findings

FINDING 1

The Efficiencies Panel considers that the £40 million efficiency savings had been identified as the target amount, rather than analysis undertaken, regarding what can reasonably be achieved.

FINDING 2

Not only is the original definition of an efficiency' flawed, it has been widened to encompass a swathe of cost cutting measures.

FINDING 3

The change towards a rebalancing' narrative suggests that efficiency savings are not achievable. There is insufficient evidence to suggest the Government has  carried  out  in-depth  impact  assessments  of  the  continuation  of  the aggressive Efficiencies Programme.

FINDING 4

It has been impossible to isolate the impact of any efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on vulnerable groups.

FINDING 5

There is insufficient data to support the deferral of the Care Needs at Home project, and this is an efficiency that would have an unacceptable impact on Islanders' well-being.

FINDING 6

The last minute amendment by the Council of Ministers to reinstate the funding for  the  Office  of  the  Public  Ombudsman  is  yet  more  evidence  that  the Government simply proposed reduced budgets without truly considering or understanding  the  impact  on  already  disenfranchised  members  of  the community and without due regard for Common Strategic Priorities, especially Improving Islanders' Wellbeing and Improving Islanders' Standard of Living.

FINDING 7

It has been impossible to isolate the impact of any efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on customers, colleagues and services. We are unable to conclude whether the efficiencies planned for 2021- 2024 are appropriate.

FINDING 8

The Efficiencies Panel considers there is too great an emphasis on broad efficiency  measures  without  acknowledging  the  human'  impact  of  these efficiencies, especially where they appear to run counter to Common Strategic Priorities.

FINDING 9

The Government has not placed enough emphasis on its own surveys including Listening to Islanders'.  

Key Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Council of Ministers should ensure that there is detailed analysis behind the business cases for efficiencies before imposing them upon departments.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The efficiencies should be easier to track and identify as A, B, or C,' measures and also whether they run counter to Common Strategic Priorities.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Government should ensure there is sufficient data to support an ongoing Efficiencies  programme,  including  societal  impact  assessments  as  well  as budgetary considerations.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The  Government  should  halt  any  efficiencies  which  negatively  impact  on children and young people and ensure any further planned efficiencies do not negatively impact on this sector of society.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Government should not defer the Care Needs at Home' project unless and until it can provide evidence to support such a move, including a societal impact assessment.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The  Government  should  not  defer  any  project  which  runs  counter  to  the Common Strategic priorities, unless and until it can provide evidence to support such a move, including a societal impact assessment. It should consider innovations such as outcomes-based contracting, social impact bonds and social impact investing to deliver upon its commitment to the Common Strategic Priorities, before undertaking further efficiency measures and develop its final approach to a sustainable wellbeing impact assessment as a matter of urgency.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Government should make it easier to track, analyse and assess what the impact of any efficiency measure, including the projects which are halted, deferred or reduced, is on customers, staff and services.

RECOMMENDATION 8

Some  of  the  budget  for  retaining  expert  consultants  to  drive  efficiencies programmes  should  be  used  to  research  and  develop  social  impact assessments and the consultants should also be asked to consider the human' impact any proposed efficiency might have, so as to more closely align them with the Common Strategic Priorities.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Government should invest in, monitor, and truly reflect on surveys and other indicators, to fully understand and better reflect the priorities of Islanders in any efficiency or rebalancing programme.

Background

Government Plan 2020-2023

The first Government Plan (the Plan)[5] was published in 2019 and replaced the previous Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP). It aimed to shift the general focus from income and expenditure to the underlying projects and strategic priorities being funded and included a definitive plan for the first succeeding financial year (2020) and similar projections for the following three financial years.

Budget Forecasts Pre-COVID

In the first Government Plan 2020-2023, it had been agreed that there would be £824 million of spending on public services in 2020 by States departments. This compared to a budget of £735 million in 2019[6], was a 12% increase in spending. The amount included new spending totalling £81 million[7] in 2020, and £40 million of efficiency savings[8].

Government Plan Review Panel 2020

The Government Plan Review Panel (GPRP) was formed in 2019 to coordinate the scrutiny of the Government Plan. The Scrutiny review of the Plan took a thorough approach, looking at each Action, Business Case for Additional Revenue Expenditure, and Business Case for Capital  Expenditure  in  as  much  detail  as  possible  with  the  information  provided  by Government.  The  GPRP  also  reviewed  the  proposed  Efficiencies  Programme  through interaction  with  Ministers  and  Departments,  and  reviewed  relevant  statements  required through the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019 (such as 6-monthly statements required under Part 23).

Recommendations Made in 2019 for the First Government Plan

The Government Plan Review Panel, in 2019, made several findings and recommendations relating to the proposed efficiencies and one major amendment, as below:

FINDING 1.9

The detail of the efficiencies programme was released too late for adequate scrutiny to occur and the Government's definition of efficiencies is flawed.

RECOMMENDATION 1.10

Detail on efficiencies should be released at the same time as the Government Plan is lodged.

RECOMMENDATION 1.11

Efficiencies should only be defined as genuine saving measures. A separate definition should be used for increased fees or charges.

RECOMMENDATION 1.12

The  full  Efficiencies  Programme,  including  business  cases  for  planned  savings measures, should form part of the Government Plan and be approved by the Assembly.

RECOMMENDATION 1.13

Detailed analysis is required on how efficiencies have been scoped and calculated.

Amendment – Temporarily Remove the Efficiencies Programme from the Government Plan:

The Panel will lodge an amendment to temporarily remove the Efficiencies Program from the Government Plan and ask that the Council of Ministers reintroduces the Program as an amendment to the approved Government Plan, to be voted on by the Assembly. This will allow for a full and proper debate on the Efficiencies Program by the Assembly and a standard scrutiny period[9].

Efficiencies Plan (2019 for 2020)

The first version of the Efficiencies Plan 2020-23 (R.130/2019) was published on 21st October 2019[10] and approved by the Assembly on 22nd October 2019. It had been developed to demonstrate how joining up services, being more commercial and cutting waste would help free up the investment to fund the Government Plan priorities over four years.

This timeline was a source of considerable frustration among Scrutiny Panels and other States Members, as it allowed only 3 weeks for States members to consider the proposed efficiencies before the deadline for lodging amendments to the Government Plan 2020-2023. Although Scrutiny Panel Chairs received an initial briefing on 19th September, they only received a high-level summary of the efficiencies and did not have a public document on which to question ministers.

In addition, by the time the plan was published in October 2019, most Scrutiny Panels were already finalising their reports on the Government Plan and therefore did not have the opportunity to analyse or take evidence on the proposed efficiencies.

The departmental allocations that States Members approved on 26th November were before the efficiencies had been applied. This means that there was no legal requirement for Ministers or departments to implement the efficiencies they had committed to.

Ongoing Scrutiny of Efficiencies

P.88/2019, the proposition which effectively separated the consideration of Efficiencies from the rest of the Government Plan, also laid out the intentions for ongoing scrutiny of efficiencies, namely that:

1. the  Scrutiny  Liaison  Committee,  throughout  the  life  of  the  Government  Plan,  to undertake, commission or oversee detailed 6-monthly assessments of the planned efficiency savings, specifying the expected impact on the ongoing delivery of public services, by Minister, Department and CSP priority, accompanied by a comparable comprehensive review of the real impact of the previous 6 months' efficiencies;  
2. to agree that the Council of Ministers is requested to bring forward detailed proposals each year, to be included as a separate paragraph within the Government Plan proposition, seeking the Assembly's specific endorsement of each of the efficiencies contained in the Government Plan.  

The Chief Minister responded in comments of October 2019, that he recognised the legitimate interest of States Members in how efficiencies were likely to affect services and Islanders. He agreed the efficiency plan for 2021 would be included within the 2021 Government Plan, intended to be lodged in July 2020. This meant that the departments' proposed heads of expenditure in the Government Plan would be after efficiencies were deducted. He stated:

Changes in how we deliver efficiencies may arise in the period after the lodging of the plan, and over the course of the financial year. For example, the Accountable Officer of a department may identify an additional course of action that improves financial efficiency It would seem detrimental to good public services and delivering value  for  money  for  the  taxpayer  if  the  Accountable  Officer  could  not  pursue efficiencies across the department's budget The longstanding requirement on Accountable Officers to use resources economically, efficiently and effectively is intended to promote departments finding ways to go under budget.

Ministerial Response to Government Plan Review Panel

In his published Ministerial Response[11] in January 2020, the Chief Minister set out, amongst other things his response to the findings and recommendations of the GPRP relating to efficiencies.

Establishment of an Efficiencies Review Panel

In keeping with P.88/2019, the Scrutiny Liaison Committee commissioned the Government Plan Efficiencies Review Panel (Efficiencies Review Panel or ERP)[12] to:

1. Undertake, commission or oversee detailed 6-monthly assessments of the planned efficiency savings outlined by the Council of Ministers through the Government Plan process (as agreed through P.88/2019).
2. Assess the expected impact on the ongoing delivery of public services, by Minister, Department  and  Common  Strategic  Policy (CSP)  priority,  accompanied  by  a comparable comprehensive review of the real impact of the previous 6 months' efficiencies.
3. Consider the financial, social and administrative implications that these efficiencies may have on islanders, especially those in receipt of public services.

Original Timescale

The  Efficiencies  Review  Panel  had  originally  expected  to  progress  work  on  its  review according to the following timetable:

Revised Timescale

With the onset of Covid-19 in March 2020, and the Government's need to divert resources to respond to it, it became clear that the original timetable would have to be significantly revised.

The Efficiencies Plan 2020-2023

Definition of Efficiencies

The Efficiencies Review Panel recalled that in 2019, the Government Plan Review Panel had significant concerns surrounding the entire efficiencies programme, leading to the main finding in its consolidated Scrutiny Report on the Government Plan 2020-2023 (November 2019), that the Government's definition of efficiencies was flawed.[13] The Efficiencies Review Panel also had doubts about what had been termed as an efficiency', noting that the Government had, for example, included increased revenue as efficiency savings:[14]/[15]

The Efficiencies Review Panel noted that the expenditure efficiencies to realise the Government's ambition to achieve £100m of efficiencies, with the first £40m to be achieved in 2020, had been defined and categorised as follows:[16]

Definition of an efficiency

Efficiency signifies a level of performance that uses the least amount of input to achieve the highest amount of output. Reflecting the broader strategic and operational objectives of the Government of Jersey, programme efficiencies include:

1. A reduction in revenue spend, delivering better-quality services for less, through:

• reducing non-essential spend and developing lower-cost alternatives

• streamlining processes

• integrating services and functions and reducing duplicate activity.

2. More efficient collection of existing income and better debt management

3. Increasing the Government's revenue through further recovery of existing costs, moving towards full cost recovery of services where appropriate.

4. The extension and increase of existing charges or introduction of new charges as revenue raising measures.

The Chief Minister, in a hearing with the Government Plan Review Panel in October 2019, had accepted that the definition was not accurate in terms of the true meaning of efficiencies:

The Chief Minister:

We were very clear, I think I have said all the way through, that we have got to be demonstrating that we are seeing efficiencies and I accept from that terminology is that going to be 100 per cent efficiencies or majority efficiencies using the proper term of "efficiencies" by the way and there are always some tweaks around this[17]

The Review Panel maintains its concerns about the  Government's original definition of efficiencies, and its ongoing concern about the broadening of the Government's definition of efficiencies' into rebalancing' measures.

Role of the Efficiencies Programme Board

The Efficiencies Plan had set out £100 million of efficiencies over four years including nearly £40 million to be saved in 2020, and an Efficiencies Programme Board had been established which comprised Jonathan Williams, Programme Director, Efficiencies Programme Board and John Quinn, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Operating Office (COO), with the Chief Minister as the Chair of the attendant Political Oversight Group.  

The original intention had been for the Efficiencies Review Panel to receive 6-monthly reports from the Board, then publish a 6-monthly report of the Panel's findings to the States Assembly. However, with the onset of Covid-19, the Efficiencies Programmes Board Director advised that the pursuit of the Efficiencies Programme, specifically the internal governance and processes to develop plans for 2021 and beyond, had been:

fundamentally impacted by Covid-19, which has had a significant impact on the financial performance of the Government of Jersey. The significance of this impact rendered the original assumptions, on which the Efficiencies Programme was based, invalid'.

However, the plan to deliver £40 million for 2020 continued. The Efficiencies Review Panel therefore needed to also reconsider its approach. It agreed it would need to refocus its time on trying to not only monitor the efficiencies already made but also try to investigate the ongoing drive for efficiencies, now termed rebalancing'.

Collecting Evidence

In order to review the progress of the Efficiencies Plan and understand the new approach the Government was taking, the Review Panel:  

• held private briefings with the Efficiencies Programmes Board and the Chief Minister (in his role as the Chair of the attendant Political Oversight Group)

• received responses to questions posed by the Review Panel, from the Ministers of Children and Housing, Environment and Education

• held a public hearing with the Chief Minister on 12th November 2020

• exchanged correspondence with the Chief Minister and senior officers on numerous occasions, as referenced throughout this report.

Key Issues

The Efficiencies Review Panel refocused on the following issues which form the basis of this report:

• How were efficiency savings identified and were they on track?

• What additional savings have been identified?

• Where a saving target was not met, what alternative saving was implemented?

• How have impacts (including Covid-19) been identified and measured, and have there been any unintended consequences because of efficiency savings?

• What is the intended programme of efficiencies going forward and how will this be monitored?

The Review Panel was keen to avoid the significant risk of duplication of work, given that the standing Panels would follow up on outcomes in their subsequent Government Plan Reviews. Many of the efficiencies would need to be analysed by the standing Panels as part of their ongoing programme of work throughout the year.

The following table links to the Government Plan 2021-2024 Reviews undertaken by each Scrutiny Panel, whose reports each contain a review of the efficiencies achieved in 2020 and detailed analysis of the further efficiencies to be imposed by the Government Plan 2021-2024, together with an overarching review of the Government Plan 2021-2024:

Progress on Efficiencies Plan of 2020

As of October 2019, the Government's Distribution of Efficiencies':

In 2019, CIPFA[18] had been provided with an early version of the Efficiencies Plan, which contained details of £32.78 million of the efficiencies. They drew attention to the lack of detailed information to support the proposed efficiencies and highlighted that the savings need to be cashable.

Our concerns in this area focus on the lack of detailed information to support each strand of measure there is an absence of detail which we would expect to see that would provide some indication as to the maturity of approach used to work up' each efficiency measure. Given that the financial modelling with the overall government plan expects the realisation of the planned sums in efficiency savings we are assuming that such efficiency savings are fully cashable savings as opposed to counter-factual saving. For example detailed workings on the proposed Hospital efficiencies of £3.53m and other Health efficiencies of £2.47m would be extremely helpful. Given unrelenting service demand it is difficult to conceive that such level of cashable efficiencies exist that can be delivered in one year 2020.[19]

Closure Report

The Government's Efficiencies Programme formally ended in April 2020 and the Board produced  a  closure'  report  which  was  not  published.  Prior  to  receiving  a  copy  of  the Efficiencies Programmes Board Closure Report, the Government Efficiencies Plan Review Panel held a briefing on 12th June 2020 with the senior officers. The officers explained that the Government were putting forward a recovery plan' which would incorporate a revised Government Plan with a new financial envelope', a reduced budget. The Chief Minister, in his role as political overseer of the Efficiencies Programme, advised:

As the financial impact of Covid-19 emerged in 2020, it was clear that immediate action was required to manage the short-term impacts of the pandemic on government finances and that longer-term measures were also required to maintain sustainable public finances. At this point, the efficiencies programme was subsumed into the rebalancing' workstream to broaden the scope with that aim.[20]

The Review Panel asked the Chief Minister about the diagrams depicting a Red/Amber/Green status of efficiencies, contained with the Efficiencies Programmes Board closure report as at 27th April 2020. This showed that nearly £7 million of efficiencies had been marked as complete but there was over £15 million outstanding. The Efficiencies Review Panel noted that, by April 2020, few of the efficiencies had been achieved, even though the money had already been removed from the budgets, and the Executive Leadership Team had driven the savings in any event:

The Review Panel also noted that, in the Lessons Learned' part of the report and even by the Board's  admission,  in  most  cases,  the  data  collected,  and  impact  assessments  were inadequate in relation to the efficiencies drive:

The Efficiencies Review Panel took issue with the way in which the figure of £40 million of efficiency savings for 2020 had been arrived at. It would seem as though it was identified as the target amount rather than analysis being undertaken regarding what could be reasonably achieved (the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy backed this up in their 2019  report  on  the  proposed  Government  Plan  2020-2023)[21].  Instead,  the  £40  million earmarked for efficiencies appeared to be a series of aspirational targets for the Government to impose upon departments. The lack of detailed analysis behind the business cases for efficiencies was also a major concern.

FINDING 1

The Efficiencies Panel considers that the £40 million efficiency savings had been identified as the target amount, rather than analysis undertaken, regarding what can reasonably be achieved.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Council of Ministers should ensure that there is detailed analysis behind the business cases for efficiencies before imposing them upon departments.

Six Month Progress Report of the Government Plan 2020-2023

The Review Panel received the published 6-month progress review of the Government Plan 2020-2023 at the beginning of September 2020. It stated that at the half year position, around £28m of the £40m planned efficiencies for 2020 were due to be delivered and included a breakdown per department of the efficiencies made:

The Review Panel recalled that the Efficiencies Plan had set out efficiencies of £40 million in 2020, with £21.5 million in departments, £11.1 million held centrally and £7.4 million in tax income.

Plan A, B, C

The 6-month progress report seemed to confirm the Review Panel's concerns in how the efficiencies were arrived at. In describing the impact of Covid-19 on the efficiencies drive and the intention to replace the original plan with a rebalancing programme, it stated:

Therefore, going forward efficiencies will form but one part of the overall financial re- balancing activity of the Government's fiscal position It is important to restate the approach to the delivery of the efficiencies agreed by the Council of Ministers as set out in the original Efficiencies Plan. Ministers [also] agreed that if any of the efficiencies are not subsequently approved [or delivered], they will seek alternative departmental efficiencies to the same value to replace them and/or reduce or reprofile some of the planned spending by the equivalent amount, in order to ensure that income and spending remain in balance.'

This approach was subsequently described as:

Plan A: The efficiency has been delivered or is on track for delivery in 2020

Plan B: An alternative efficiency has been/will be developed to cover any shortfall

Plan C: Typically, Government Plan growth will be deferred to cover any shortfall although other one-off approaches can be used where appropriate.

The Report went on:

This  combination  of  approaches maintains  a  sustained focus  on  the  delivery of efficiencies while implementing a backstop which, in the event of non-delivery, ensures that expenditure is delivered within cash limits. It also mitigates the risk that efficiencies will just be delivered through a reduction in service provision. In this update the delivery progress of each efficiency is classified into these plans. It has been particularly important to capture efficiencies classified as Plan C. In this group, the planned recurring efficiencies have not been delivered and consequently both the efficiency and value ascribed will be carried over into 2021. This ensures there is a sustained focus on delivering recurring efficiencies and, in so doing, protects the outcomes that the investments are intended to achieve.

As part of a series of briefings to States Members in October 2020, on the revised Government Plan, the officers presented a series of slides, headlining the Government position:

Impact of Covid-19 and Continuation of Efficiencies Programme

The Review Panel is aware that the Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant, sometimes devastating, impact on peoples' lives in Jersey. With such a huge change in circumstances from last year when the efficiencies had been identified for each Government department, the Review Panel wanted to explore with the Chief Minister[22] why money was still taken from

budgets even when the department could not make the efficiencies it had previously agreed. The Chair asked the Chief Minister why the decision to cease the current Efficiencies Programmes Board and to alter the agreed set of efficiencies as set out in the Government Plan Report 2020-2023 had not been brought to the States Assembly, so that a new set of efficiencies could be devised and debated. The Chief Minister replied that the efficiencies' as previously established would continue, however the Government response to Covid-19 had become a priority.

The Review Panel pressed the Chief Minister to explain why (and by whom) the decision had been taken to simply press on' with efficiencies:

The Connétable of St. Peter

Last year you identified efficiencies to be made by each department, then the money was taken from the budget but due to changing circumstances, including Covid, Instead of simply agreeing to such a huge change with the Council of Ministers, why did you not bring the decision back to the States for approval?

The Chief Minister:

I think the point is, is that the target that had been set by the States was a sum of money Therefore that was the target that was set out to be achieved. We were not saying we are not going to make the target, we are just saying we are going to be doing it in a different way, which was laid out in the plan. It was what we call A, B, C. So plan C in that case was measures to get it over the line.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

Is that not just a sort of smash-and-grab way of cutting budgets? The Chief Minister:

No, it is all very much under ministerial control.

The Chief Minister added that the financial impact might not be seen in 2020, for example, a planned efficiency of £7 million of additional tax revenue which would have been saved due to improved tax compliance might not be fully realised in this year partly because officers assigned to undertake this work had been re-assigned to other areas to support the Covid-19 response.

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

Just to add to that, if I may we will make some savings on some of the investment, which will naturally offset some of the reductions in the efficiencies. But they will be in the budget in 2021 and we absolutely need to make them as recurrent as we possibly can, that is the intention.

The Chief Minister[23] confirmed that if departments could not achieve the previously anticipated efficiencies as set out in the Government Plan Report 2020-2023, they were expected to deliver alternative efficiencies (he referred to this as Plan B'), or adopt Plan C', which was to defer projects or growth expenditure in order to get across the line' of achieving efficiencies.  

He said that in most conversations he had held with Department heads, they had chosen Plan C', that is to defer growth expenditure, for this year. He cited as an example that there could be a delay in the recruitment of personnel to deliver a planned service where the service itself had been delayed because of Covid-19.

When asked how much of the £40 million efficiencies target outlined in R.130/2019 Efficiencies Plan were met, the Chief Minister responded:

The short answer is all of the £40 million has been delivered but that splits into 2. One is what is being delivered on a recurring basis, which is around £28 million Then a balance of £12 million, which will be a mix of things but basically are a number of one- off things to get us across the board. Part of that will have been the impact of COVID but we are always clear that there was a plan A, B, C essentially. So plan A was to achieve the recurring efficiencies (as) laid out in the report (of) efficiencies that was attached to the Government Plan last year. B was an alternative measure and C was something else that basically got us across the line as a one-off because sometimes there are things that needed slightly longer to embed. The intention is still to achieve the £40 million recurring but we have banked about £28 million.

The Review Panel questioned the Chief Minister on why the £21.5 million had already been removed at the beginning of the year, from the departmental budgets in line with the Programme. The Chief Minister replied that this was done only when everyone had signed up' to achieve that efficiency and it was a way to make sure that the efficiencies were indeed achieved, and that it should not impact on service levels. The Chair asked the Chief Minister to explain, where efficiencies could not be achieved in a certain area, why departments were under pressure to deliver efficiencies in another area because the budget had been cut anyway.

The Chief Minister responded that the cuts had been made, not to basic spend, but rather to growth expenditure.

The Chief Minister:

The £12 million intention is that, as in the one-off items, will get us across the line this year, so £40 million will be achieved this year. But the intention then is to get the recurring items or replacements, if something has changed, but a recurring item that will add up to that extra £12 million will need to be achieved such that by the end of the whole Government Plan process we have got for 2020 £40 million has been banked and recurring.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

How much of that has been taken away from the base budget and (you have) said: "Get on with it. If you cannot deliver these savings then make your own up"?

Director, Business Change:

£40 million was removed from the base budget of the Government, you are correct, at the outset of this plan. The majority of that came out of departmental budgets but there are a couple of smaller items that were held centrally. As the Chief Minister, has set out, the intention was always to deliver per plan A or B but it was important to have a backstop in the event that some of those efficiencies could not be delivered in the period of time that was set out. Those are the one-off items which will be carried forward into 2021 to deliver.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

My question is then: what percentage of the total package is made up of these backstop measures, last-minute measures?

Director, Business Change: £12 million out of the £40 million

The Review Panel noted that the majority of the £12 million Plan C' delivery came from underspends and deferred growth (as a result of Covid:19), for example:

• Delay in implementation of Target Operating Models (TOMs)

• Reduction in income streams

• Longer retention of contract and agency staff

The  Review  Panel  asked  the  Chief  Minster  about  the  largest  single  efficiency  in  the Efficiencies Plan 2020-2023 (R.130/2019): £10.07million detailed in Efficiency 1.1 (Employee Terms). The Chief Minister advised that work had been undertaken on monitoring and delivering efficiencies in:

• Overtime

• Sickness

• Voluntary Redundancy and early retirement

• Agency & fixed term contracts

• Vacancy management

The Review Panel noted that income collection targets and improved debt management arrangements had been largely delivered as originally planned. The money had already been removed from the departmental budgets, but even with different measures implemented to achieve the efficiency targets, reductions of some services and the costs of temporary staff to support the response to Covid-19 meant that not all of the original programme had progressed as planned. Nevertheless, despite the huge changes, through the application of the Delivery Plan A, B, C approach, the savings' were being deemed achieved' by the end of 2020.

The Review Panel further noted that the plan was to carry forward' that £12 million into 2021 to  ensure  the  recurring  reductions  in  base  expenditure  and  increases  in  income  were delivered. Assuming that all of the variance represents either one-off delivery or deferred Government Plan growth, this means that an additional £12m of efficiencies will need to be added to the existing objective to deliver £20m in 2021.

The Review Panel noted that not only had the original definition of efficiencies been flawed, but it was now being broadened to encompass budget cuts or reductions which did not appear to be complementary to Common Strategic Priorities. The Review Panel concluded the efficiencies should be easier to track and identify as A, B, or C,' measures and also whether they run counter to Common Strategic Priorities.

FINDING 2

Not only is the original definition of an efficiency' flawed, it has been widened to encompass a swathe of cost cutting measures.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The efficiencies should be easier to track and identify as A, B, or C,' measures and also whether they run counter to Common Strategic Priorities.

Rebalancing or Efficiencies from 2021 Onwards

Due to the onset of Covid-19, the Efficiencies Review Panel's work programme was delayed and complicated significantly in trying to track not only the delivery of the efficiencies but also the impact of Covid-19 response on their delivery. The Government made clear in the Government Plan 2021-2024, that multiple approaches would be required to balance the finances, not just delivering savings and efficiencies. This approach represented a shift to a broader  set  of  financial  rebalancing  measures,  into  which  the  efficiencies'  have  been subsumed.

Identifying New Efficiencies

The Chief Minister confirmed to the Review Panel that it was his intention to pursue the efficiencies programme, or rebalancing, in part to offset the cost of Covid-19, summarised in the table below:

When asked what work had been carried out on identifying new efficiencies for the Recovery Plan, the Chief Minister explained that he had commenced preliminary conversations with most Ministers about identifying whether more efficiencies could be achieved, and how they might prioritise projects going forward to produce £20 million of efficiencies for 2021.

He advised that the (former) Department of Growth, Housing and Environment[24] (GHE) had set itself a challenge to achieve at operational level, efficiencies of close to 20% of its budget, around £9 million. He advised that workshops were currently taking place with Ministers in order to consider a revised financial envelope', in other words, what further efficiencies could be achieved post Covid-19.

The Chief Minister confirmed that the scope of efficiencies had been broadened to include other measures, such as in 2021, the inclusion of one-off' items (e.g. selling of property assets) and the whole rebalancing programme would include a wide range of fiscal measures, borrowing strategies, economic stimulus, treatment of funds and the delivery of efficiencies, as summarised in the headline' table below:

The Chief Minister confirmed that as part of the rebalancing programme', substantial savings would have to be made in 2021, beyond the £20+ million originally planned, throughout departments:

Aspirational Targets

The Government Plan 2021-2024 sets out a total of £100m of recurring efficiencies or rebalancing  measures  by  measures  by  2023,  and  there  is  an  incremental'  additional efficiencies plan for 2024, thereby making a total of £120m of recurring measures by 2024. The Treasurer of the States had indicated to the Review Panel that the Government was minded to continue the efficiencies drive to find another £20 million through 2024:

Treasurer of the States:

In terms of the additional rebalancing plan out to 2024 we could add a fairly modest £20 million to that for 2024. While the number in total looks large it is not that large compared to the total spending over that period[25]

The Review Panel noted a report[26] by the Principal Consultant at CIPFA, commissioned by the  Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel.  The  Principal  Consultant  commented  on  the Government's Efficiencies to Rebalancing Programme:

The Plan advises that central to rebalancing budgets over the period to 2024 is the delivery of the package of efficiencies totalling some £20m targets for 2021, in addition to a £100m target or annual recurring savings per annum by 2023. The change towards a rebalancing narrative suggests a tacit acceptance that the required quantum of efficiency  savings  are  no  longer  achievable.  Additionally,  the  extent  to  which efficiencies are to be delivered from deferred growth does not provide confidence that efficiencies  were  actual  management  interventions  specifically  capable  of  being efficiency savings in nature.

The  Review  Panel  concurs  and,  aware  of  the  Government's  ambitious  plans  to  drive efficiencies of around £20 million each year to at least 2024, is concerned that this drive will therefore result in the Government broadening its definition of efficiencies' even further. Notwithstanding that there is a note' on each GP 2021 efficiencies/re balancing project, in the relevant section of the Government Plan 2021-2024, section, the Review Panel cannot find evidence to suggest the Government has carried out sufficiently in-depth impact assessments of the continuation of the aggressive[27] Efficiencies Programme.

FINDING 3

The change towards a rebalancing' narrative suggests that efficiency savings are not achievable. There is insufficient evidence to suggest the Government has carried out in-depth impact assessments of the continuation of the aggressive Efficiencies Programme.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Government should ensure there is sufficient data to support an ongoing Efficiencies  programme,  including  societal  impact  assessments  as  well  as budgetary considerations.

Impact of Efficiencies/Rebalancing Programme

As previously mentioned in this report, the Efficiencies Review Panel was anxious not to duplicate the excellent work of the Scrutiny Panels in assessing the impact of the continuing efficiencies  programme.  It  wanted  to  highlight  areas,  however,  where  the  proposed efficiencies appear to be in direct contrast with the Government's 5 stated common strategic priorities (CSPs):

1. Put Children First  
2. Improve Islanders' wellbeing and mental and  physical health  
3. Create a sustainable, vibrant economy  
4. Reduce income inequality and improve the  standard of living  
5. Protect and value our environment  

Putting Children First  

Therapeutic Unit for Young People in Care

The Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel (CEHA) expressed concerns over the proposed change to a pop-up therapeutic unit for young people in residential care with complex needs rather than a full-time unit.[28] The decision to make this change came from a needs assessment which had not yet been completed. Concerns have also been raised by key stakeholders about the rationale for this change, the independence of it and whether consultation with young people has taken place.

The Review Panel agrees with the recommendation of the CEHA Panel that the Minister for Children and Housing should pause the rebalancing measure until the needs' assessment is fully completed and a full consultation has taken place with key stakeholders.

Care Leavers' Entitlement Offer

This offer was launched in February 2020 as part of the Government's commitment to supporting care leavers with access to services and funding in line with its approach to Corporate Parenting. As part of the efficiencies programme, the CEHA Panel found that, due to a low uptake in the service at this stage, it had been proposed that the funding for the care leavers offer be reduced by £100,000 in 2021. However, upon investigation by CEHA, it became  apparent  that  the  low  uptake  was  probably  due  to  the  initiative  being  poorly communicated rather than it being non-essential.  

The Review Panel notes that the proposed efficiency saving received significant feedback from Jersey Cares, and heartfelt comments were received by the CEHA Panel from young people with experience of care in relation to the proposed savings:

"I feel it is another example of the Government going well you are not that important, not as important as other budgets, or other things because we can reduce this by a huge amount. Goes into how they already feel about us anyway"'.

 "The Care Leavers' Offer is not being actively promoted' at all, not one bit. Well promoted, but hardly put into practice."

"What you are doing ensures that care leavers like I contribute to the ugly statistics of failure among Care Experienced young people, you are helping to add to the stigma that we all apparently try to fight." – Young care leaver trying to secure a home before the new academic year.[29]

This view was also shared by the children's charity Brightly who stated that it was widely accepted that the offers for those in care and leaving care have not been implemented at all well.[30]

The Review Panel was disappointed to note that when the CEHA Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Housing whether there had been any consultation with care leavers or looked after children in relation to the proposed savings from the scheme, he could not confirm whether this had taken place.[31],

It was suggested in the submission from Brightly that instead of reducing the level of funding, the £100,000 would be better used to provide private mental health appointments for care leavers and mental health support for young people in other ways.[32] The CEHA Panel questioned this and were told that the Department had outstanding efficiency savings from 2020 that would need to be met in 2021:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

That would have been one outcome but we have an outstanding efficiency target to meet from 2020, which, as you know, we have not met by delivering those efficiencies in full and therefore have had to find other ways of doing that. Going into 2021, we now have the challenge of making those efficiencies recurrent and therefore the approach that has been taken by the Council of Ministers, and therefore with civil servants, is that we need to meet our efficiency savings in order to balance the Government's books, rather than recycle those efficiencies into further investment.[33]

The Review Panel shares the concerns of the CEHA Panel that the approach adopted through this efficiency appears to overlook the concerns and issues that have been raised directly by service users.

The Review Panel is mindful that the Chief Economist at CIPFA commented[34]:

Wider  inequalities  across  age,  gender  and  race  will  warrant  more  robust  policy frameworks in Jersey as well. While young people may be less susceptible to the Covid-19 virus, they have shouldered the weight of job losses and reduced job prospects, not to mention disruptions in their education and the prospect of higher taxes that will endure for years to come. According to the Jersey Opinion and Lifestyle Survey[35] (JOLS), 43% of respondents under the age of 35 reported high levels of anxiety or stress since the start of the pandemic – more than double the average rate of cohorts aged 55 and over.

The Review Panel notes that whilst these amounts of efficiency savings might represent a relatively small sum, they should be weighed against the enormous negative impact such a saving can make on the already disadvantaged Islanders. It agrees with the CEHA Panel's recommendation that the Minister for Children and Housing should not take forward the proposed rebalancing initiative in relation to the Care Leavers Offer and should seek to make the efficiency saving from within other budgets, and is pleased to note the CEHA Panel have sought an amendment to the Government Plan to that effect.[36]

The Review Panel notes that at the time this report was being finalised, the Council of Ministers essentially adopted the CEHA amendment by proposing its own last-minute amendment to reinstate the funding.[37] It welcomes this move, although it sees it as an example of how the Government simply reduced budgets before truly considering or understanding the impact on already disenfranchised members of the community.

Jersey Premium

Jersey Premium is a targeted funding scheme which provides funding to schools in order to offer support to children and young people that fall within specific criteria (including those in care, in families on income support and those who would qualify for income support if they had lived in the Island for more than 5 years). The CEHA Panel has found that the funding for this is due to be reduced by £159,000 in 2021 as part of the rebalancing programme. The CEHA Panel expressed concern about this reduction given the abundance of evidence highlighting the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on learning and attainment for vulnerable children. It has therefore brought an amendment to retain the additional £159,000 for 2021 and subsequent years in order that it can be used to address any additional needs which may arise as a result of the pandemic[38].

This view accords with the Chief Economist at CIPFA, who stated:

In addressing the CSP Priorities, a more thorough appraisal of existing data can help the Jersey government direct funds where inequalities are the greatest. Outcomes relating to education, health, housing and income are highly correlated with an individual's personal background yet many of these indicators are either absent in surveys such as the JOLS or not reported in a useful way in the official statistics (e.g. "place of birth" in the national census). By improving the kinds of statistics that are collected, particularly along the dimensions of race and ethnicity, Jersey can enable the framework for a fairer society that would enhance resident well-being.'[39]

The Review Panel notes that at the time this report was being finalised, the Council of Ministers essentially adopted the CEHA amendment by proposing its own last-minute amendment to reinstate the funding.[40] It welcomes this move, although it sees it as another example of how the Government simply reduced budgets without truly considering or understanding the impact on already disenfranchised members of the community.

The Review Panel remains extremely concerned about the ongoing impact of what it considers to be an aggressive programme to cut the budgets of several departments, including those who serve the most vulnerable people or those who have already suffered inequality and hardship. It is mindful that a critical aspect of assessing the delivery of each efficiency is understanding the impact of its delivery, particularly on disadvantaged people. It has been impossible to isolate the impact of the efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on them. Similarly, due to staff redeployment to the emergency pandemic response, the Government has not developed its final approach to a sustainable wellbeing impact assessment. This needs to happen as a matter of urgency before the inequality gap widens further.

FINDING 4

It has been impossible to isolate the impact of any efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on vulnerable groups.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Government should halt any efficiencies which negatively impact on children and young people and ensure any further planned efficiencies do not negatively impact on this sector of society.

Improve Islanders' Wellbeing

The Review Panel noted that last year, the Minister for Health and Social Services was asked to make £9 million worth of efficiencies in 2020. At a Public Hearing in October 2020[41] the Health and Social Services Panel (HSSP) was advised that, of that £9 million, £5 million worth of efficiencies had been delivered. Of the £5 million worth of efficiencies made, £3.5 million have been realised through the offset of 2020 growth and £1.5 million resulted from direct efficiency savings across all business units following a budget review.

In total, the Minister for Health and Social Services has been asked to make £5,227,000 worth of efficiencies in 2021. £5 million is due to be made through the implementation of proposals from a Zero-Based Budgeting exercise and £227,000 through recurring reductions in the non- staff budget.

The Minister for Social Security has been asked to make £442,000 worth of efficiencies in 2021. £400,000 is due to be made from deferring the implementation of the care needs at home project by one year and £61,000 will be made through regularly reviewing and improving customer services. Furthermore, £19,000 is due to be deducted from the Minister's budget and paid to Justice and Home Affairs to support Health and Safety Inspectorate resources.

Regarding the efficiencies that have been made, the Minister for Health and Social Services assured the HSSP[42] that they were delivered after a clinical assessment was undertaken to ensure that there would be no impact on the health of patients.

Zero-Based Budgeting

At the public hearing with the Chief Minister on 12 November 2020, the Efficiencies Review Panel wanted to be clear about the rationale behind these cuts to the budget:

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The department that is doing some zero-based budgeting is the Health Department again. They have got the biggest budget, delivering £5 million of savings. The exercise, they say, has identified further potential opportunities. They have delivered £2 million and they have £3 million outstanding, which is subject to action or decisions by the service, for example, strategies to reduce the use of overtime or contingent workforce in the workforce This proposal, it says, is at an early stage and detailed plans, along with benefits and impacts, will be shared as the plans evolve. We are talking about something that is still evolving and yet we have seen this document here, as delivered. It is not delivered, is it?

The Chief Minister:

This is the Government Plan for next year, so it is in the plan. I think the latest update is £4 million Yes, it is £4 million identified.

Deputy G.P. Southern : So only £1 million less.

The Chief Minister:

Yes, so we are getting there.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Where is that £4 million coming from?

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

It is coming from a variety of areas. This is at officer level at the moment ... when a plan is issued it will never put a penny on every proposal, but it is a totally deliverable number. On pay, they are looking at off-Island placements, they are looking at their corporate team, can they be more efficient and effective, and they are looking at their contract management, all the things you would expect them to look at.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

How many times do you think you can go through a process that looks at efficiency of deliverability for your staff Can you do it 5 times and still squeeze some extra out or does it get more difficult?

The Chief Minister:

My principle is that certainly in ... many organisations in the private sector - once you get into a change mentality, you are in a cycle of change, Just because you have done it 3 years ago, for the sake of argument, does not mean you should not be doing it now. You are not going to do the same area every year but if you get people who are into that change regime and (with) technology particularly changing so much. You think about us as States Members and in terms of the changes we have been through since even February. I think of when Office 365 came out and people were going on about Teams for us, documents are being prepared, it is a group thing, now all the remote working that is going on. That is us having changed in 6 months, 8 months. That is a massive change in technology. That in itself changes behaviour-

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

People use the phrase "continuous improvement." We must keep looking at all these areas on a continuous basis. We are only targeting 2 per cent. You could take it every 3 or 4 years you should be looking at 10 per cent, 15 per cent, even 20 per cent sometimes. Any organisation will keep doing it. It can be technology driven. You cannot have every new innovative idea just once and people develop and they move and improve things. That is absolutely the way it goes, otherwise if you stop, behaviours go back and it just becomes routine and expenditure just incrementally creeps up, whereas if we continue doing this on a regular every year basis you will find new ideas every time. It is a positive environment because people do not want to waste money and people want to be efficient and effective. If they can do this and see they are helping the Island, helping keep taxes down, helping deliver better services, it generates its own momentum and it generates its own enthusiasm in staff. It is a good thing, I would suggest.

Care Needs at Home

However, the Review Panel was concerned that, despite all the assurances that efficiencies would not impact patient services, it noted that, following initial planning of the "Care Needs at Home"  project,  investigations  with  individual  families  had  to  be  postponed  due  to  the pandemic, and this project has now been deferred until 2021. £400,000 worth of funds that had been allocated to the "Care Needs at Home" project for 2021 have been identified as efficiencies.

The Review Panel noted that whilst the HSSP is content with the proposals that were contained within the business case for the Care Needs at Home' project last year, it concluded that until it knew the outcome of the pilot scheme (that has been deferred to 2021) it was unable to conclude whether the resources allocated for 2022-2024 were appropriate. It has recommended that the Minister for Health and Social Security ensures that the pilot scheme for the "Care Needs at Home" project recommences as soon as considered appropriate and the current situation allows.

The HSSP wrote to the Jersey Association of Carers regarding the delay of this Programme and its views regarding the proposals. The Chair of the Association confirmed that they had not been contacted, or consulted, with about the Programme and was concerned about the burden put on carers this year and the impact this had had on their stress levels and mental health.[43]

The Review Panel shares those concerns and notes that they also align with opinions expressed by the Chief Economist of CIPFA, who wrote in his report[44] to the Economic and International Affairs Panel, that:

Performance measurement based on outcomes will be key to ensuring that stimulus- related  projects  deliver  efficiency  and  value  for  money.  Traditional  cost  benefit analyses in determining the allocation of public funding may prove insufficient to influencing  the  range  of  social  and  environmental  challenges  presented  in  the Government  Plan's  Common  Strategic  Policy  (CSP)  Priorities.  Jersey  has  an opportunity to consider innovations such as outcomes- based contracting, impact bonds[45] and social impact investing to deliver upon these commitments.

The Review Panel agrees and considers that until such time as there is proper data to support the deferral of the Care Needs at Home project, this is an efficiency that has an unacceptable impact on Islanders' wellbeing.

FINDING 5

There is insufficient data to support the deferral of the Care Needs at Home project, and this is an efficiency that would have an unacceptable impact on Islanders' well-being.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Government should not defer the Care Needs at Home' project unless and until it can provide evidence to support such a move, including a societal impact assessment.

Public Service Ombudsman

The Review Panel was concerned to note that the Government Plan 2021-2024 indicated that an efficiency had been identified by deferring the appointment of a Public Ombudsman. However, it was noted that no analysis has been completed. The Review Panel was concerned that the deferment would delay customer benefits and complaints handling, areas the Government had already been criticised for in the C&AG's Report on Handling Complaints.

The Review Panel noted that the project came forward as a result of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry and the need to provide an independent service to assist in the resolution of complaints against Government of Jersey departments. The original intention was for the legislation to underpin the Ombudsman to be brought forward in 2020 with a view to implementing it in 2021. However, this was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and associated response requiring policy officers to be redeployed. An efficiency saving of £378,000 is therefore identified for 2021. The intended timeline for debate of the legislation is now in early 2022 and implementation in 2023.

The Review Panel questioned the Chief Minister at its public hearing on 12th November 2020:

The Connétable of St. Peter :

How does the continuing impositions of efficiencies fit with your promise to prioritise the health and well-being of Islanders? I will give an example of, for instance, deferring the appointment of the public ombudsman. You state: "No analysis has been completed." Surely these delays, customer benefits and complaint handling you agree that Islanders need to be heard.

The Chief Minister:

(we) had to make a decision between some of the things like investment that we need to do What we have said on the ombudsman, look, there are priorities, at the end of the day. The intention is hopefully the States approve it during the time between and before the elections, so it is done and in, but the actual implementation just takes place later.

The Review Panel notes that the CEHA Panel received significant evidence raising concern about this delay[46], both during its review of the Government Plan and within the Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel's review of Redress and Accountability Systems in Jersey[47]. The CEHA Panel has recommended that the Chief Minister brings forward the legislation to underpin the Ombudsman for debate by quarter three 2021, with a view to implementing the office by 1st January 2022. The Review Panel notes and agrees with the CEHA Panel's amendment[48] to Government Plan, which would remove the planned efficiency saving in order to provide additional funding to progress the legislation at pace, and also provide funding to establish the Ombudsman's office in 2021 if that is achieved.

The Review Panel notes that at the time this report was being finalised, the Council of Ministers essentially adopted the CEHA amendment by proposing its own last-minute amendment to reinstate the funding for the Office of the Public Ombudsman.[49] It welcomes this move, although it sees it as yet another example of how the Government simply proposed reduced budgets without truly considering or understanding the impact on already disenfranchised members of the community.

FINDING 6

The last minute amendment by the Council of Ministers to reinstate the funding for the Office of the Public Ombudsman is yet more evidence that the Government simply proposed reduced budgets without truly considering or understanding the impact on already disenfranchised members of the community and without due regard for Common Strategic Priorities, especially Improving Islanders' Wellbeing and Improving Islanders' Standard of Living.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Government should not defer any project which runs counter to the Common Strategic priorities, unless and until it can provide evidence to support such a move, including a societal impact assessment. It should consider innovations such as outcomes-based contracting, social impact bonds and social impact investing to deliver upon its commitment to the Common Strategic Priorities, before undertaking further efficiency measures, and develop its final approach to a sustainable wellbeing impact assessment as a matter of urgency.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Workforce

The Review Panel queried the premise of the restructured programme for 2021, which would concentrate on cross cutting measures in five key areas:

• modern and efficient workforce

• organisational structures

• shaping demand (volume and methods of customers accessing services)

• processes and systems

• commercial  operations  (including  cost  recovery  and  working  with  Arms'- Length Organisations (ALOs)

The Chief Minister stated that, in terms of cost recovery, historically the Government had not been recouping the full cost of items or services and had only dealt with the cost of staffing the service delivery. He told the Panel that the Government had often not factored in such costs as premises, lighting, heating, or otherwise maintaining the property from where the service was delivered.

The Chief Minister agreed the aim was not necessarily to make a profit from Government- provided services. He confirmed that investment in modernising the IT systems would continue and that security had been strengthened during the pandemic, where most personnel had worked from home and it had been necessary to protect their systems. He said it was unlikely that efficiencies would be gained in this area, but that the modernisation of such systems would help to deliver efficiencies in other areas.

The Review Panel noted from the 6 month progress report of Government Plan 2020, that the plan to reduce staffing costs had been impacted by COVID-19 in departments. For example, a decrease in expenditure derived from an inability to recruit had been offset by an increase in overtime and/or the requirement to retain agency and/or fixed term contract staff. It noted there had been significant numbers of temporary redeployments to support the response to the pandemic. This made the ability to identify the impact of delivering efficiencies difficult.

The Review Panel noted the impact of Covid-19 and the Government's response to the pandemic had led to the following changes to the plan:

• Some One Government target operating models have been delayed due to Covid-19 related activity being prioritised in the short term and the opportunity to revise operating models with a focus on new ways of working

• A reduction in income streams, such as private patient income within Health and Community Services

• Contract and agency staff have been retained longer than originally planned, for example, where target operating models have been delayed or due to additional workloads caused by the pandemic

• The implementation of efficiency plans has been delayed as resources have been redirected to support Covid-19 activities

• Benefit expenditure has increased as a result of a rise in claim numbers and values due to the pandemic.

Overtime

The need for extra hours' work as a result of the response to the pandemic, resulted in an increase in expenditure. For example, there were consecutive monthly reductions in overtime at the start of the first quarter, but the trend stopped as colleagues began working at pace in the emergency pandemic response. The use of overtime enabled the Government to continue to provide key services to customers during a very intense phase of work. Aware of the pressures of sustained working of additional hours by many staff, managers sought to ensure that staff take sufficient breaks and use their holiday allowances.

Effective Management of Sickness

The 6 month progress report of Government Plan 2020 noted that sickness absence trends had been difficult to establish due to Covid-19 related absences. Those with underlying health conditions, or with flu-like symptoms, increased the rate of short-term absences. The main impact during this period was addressed by providing clear communications to staff on how to identify Covid-19 symptoms, and to shield and support those with additional health issues.

Voluntary Redundancy and Early Retirement

Efficiencies were delivered because of staff members leaving the organisation and the implementation of Target Operating Models compensating for the consequent reduction in staff numbers. Through tighter workforce planning arrangements, anticipated retirements have allowed for roles to be re-modelled and work distributed amongst other team members. Any like-for-like recruitment is challenged through a centralised panel. The Review Panel is aware that the loss of these staff can represent the loss of significant corporate memory. While departments prepare for this through training and skills transfer, the risk remains.

Reduction in Fixed Term Contracting (FTC) and Agency Staff

The Panel noted with concern that in some cases, data errors had suggested more opportunities to reduce staff were stated than actually exist.[50] This required alternative efficiencies to be identified or growth reduced. However, the recruitment of permanent staff to replace FTC or agency staff had resulted in efficiencies through reduced expenditure in some areas. Many working assumptions on the release of agency and FTC staff had to be updated to reflect a later release date when it became apparent that recruitment of new staff would either not be possible, significantly delayed or where new services to fight the pandemic were required. The retention of FTC and agency staff has increased staff expenditure. However, it has importantly enabled the continued delivery of services and business as usual activities while also providing the flexibility to deploy the workforce differently to address the challenges of the pandemic.

The Review Panel questioned the Chief Minister, together with senior officers, about these concerns in private briefings and at its public hearing on 12th November 2020.[51]

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I would like to refer to page 26 of the Efficiencies Plan, which is to do with voluntary redundancy, overtime management, reduction in agency staff, fixed-term contracts, et cetera. You stated in your letter that efficiencies or rebalancing measures will not have an impact on working conditions. How are you so confident of that and what steps are you taking to measure, monitor, track any impact?

The Chief Minister:

Just to use an example, if we use agency staff; somebody from an agency is getting more expensive than potentially a member of staff, so if you can replace that agency member of staff with a normal - when I say "normal", a normally employed member of staff - you made a saving but you have not changed your working conditions.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I understand that in principle but in fact how are you going to replace the people? Because in many cases the agency staff are filling in gaps to provide the service so unless you have another member of staff you can conjure up and put in their place you are not going to make that saving.

The Chief Minister:

all this depends on the nature of the work - if the work with the agency staff is important you are not going to get rid of them until you have a person in place. So you are doing recruitment and then over time you will then finish that agency contract because you may redeploy them somewhere else and obviously at the moment there are lots of people being pulled everywhere to deal with things like extra swab testing and tracing and things like that. You may just redeploy people while their contract is worked through.

Review of Investments

During the early stages of the project and programme design, resource requirements were revisited to determine the level and cost of those resources in order to identify if efficiencies could be delivered without any compromise to the Government Plan objectives. It was accepted that the impact of the pandemic had affected delivery of the planned efficiencies.

Vacancy Management

The highest value efficiency – vacancy management – had been easier to deliver with the impact of Covid-19 because recruitment, whether related to Government Plan investment, to vacant posts or turnover, was reduced. Vacancy management also provided one-off opportunities to deliver additional savings where planned efficiencies have not been possible (i.e. Plan C). Given the significant and varied pressures on staff and service provision over the last six months, the Review Panel wanted the Government to assess and analyse the value of recurring efficiencies and one-off savings delivered through vacancy management towards the end of 2020.

The Review Panel asked the Chief Minister[52] to what extent vacancy management' was adding to the efficiencies savings, given that it is seen as the biggest element:

The Chief Minister:

If you say vacancies are around 10 per cent, I think they are slightly more than that, then it gives you a range conservatively of between £30 million and £40 million a year of a chunk of money that is always in department budgets because they always budget to have the full staffing level

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Does not the shortage of staff impact the service that you can deliver? The Chief Minister:

So your vacancy management then is trying to manage that part of the money. But your staff side goes back to that point, it goes down through what the terms and conditions are like, what the culture of the organisation is like, is it regarded as something that is changing and is a good place to work, all those slightly non-financial elements as to why someone would want to work for us. That is where we have got this whole point about changing the culture, changing the way we do things, which then makes it attractive.

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

We always have a level of vacancies so it is not like we have got additional vacancies. An organisation of this size will always carry a degree of vacancies. Again because of the natural turnover point.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

My question still remains: what percentage of that natural churn ends up in what you are describing as savings because we have not appointed? You look at the Health Department, it is something like 194 vacancies last year, the year before, and that has not changed.

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

None of this is impacted on the services because of the quantum of people that we have. We can deliver the services we have by simply finessing the vacancy management If the post gets filled a month later, people can still deliver the service and none of this impacts adversely on the services.

The Review Panel is not convinced that the negative impact on Health workers, for example, is as insignificant as the Government considers it to be, notwithstanding the recruitment drive for local people to take up nursing. For example, the Health department is known to use a large number of agency staff. The Chief Minister accepted that the goal was to reduce the number of agency staff and to rely on full time workers although he did not elaborate on how this would be achieved.

Public Sector Pay Cuts

The Review Panel pressed the Chief Minister on his previous statement in private session to the Panel that there would be no public sector pay cuts to ensure the delivery of efficiency targets. The Chief Minister commented:

I think at this stage, as I have always been saying, everything is being kept on the table and nothing is off the table, that is not the expectation at the moment, but S.E.B. (States Employment Board) are still meeting and talking so I cannot really comment. Instead of being in a position in 2020 when we were talking about pay in 2018, 2019 and 2020, now we are talking about pay in 2021 there are fewer legacy issues to deal with going forward and that makes things a bit better.

The Review Panel reminded the Chief Minister that the December 2019 Labour Market report indicated that since December 2016 there has been an increase of 4.8% in public sector jobs, of which a high proportion, 27.5%, had been zero hour' employee contracts. The Chief Minister advised that although he favoured secure employment, there was always a need for zero-hour contracts in certain situations.

The Chief Minister was asked about the impact that the efficiencies were having on the workforce, both qualitatively (such as health issues, time off, staff morale) and quantitatively (job cuts/reduction in hours) or if there had been any unforeseen benefits from most of the workforce now working from home. He told the Review Panel that there was anecdotal evidence that sickness levels had dropped and that some staff had increased their productivity and were happier working from home. However, the Programmes Director confirmed that there was no performance benchmark data against which to measure productivity.

The Review Panel was concerned at this lack of data and noted that it has been impossible to isolate the impact of any efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on customers, colleagues and services. It was unable to conclude whether the efficiencies planned for 2021-2024 are appropriate.

FINDING 7

It has been impossible to isolate the impact of any efficiency itself from the significant impact that the pandemic has had on customers, colleagues and services. We are unable to conclude whether the efficiencies planned for 2021- 2024 are appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Government should make it easier to track, analyse and assess what the impact  of  any  efficiency  measure,  including  the  projects  which  are  halted, deferred or reduced, is on customers, staff and services.

Reviewing and Monitoring

Governance

The  6 month progress report of Government Plan 2020 stated that the  performance management of the 2020 plan had transitioned into the enhanced monthly financial review process (Budget Monitor):

This has provided the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) with monthly financial performance information for each efficiency, enabling appropriate management challenge and intervention. This is supplemented by monthly reporting on the Perform system which provides qualitative updates on delivery.

The Review Panel questioned the Chief Minister[53] about tracking the efficiencies and their impact:

The Connétable of St. Peter

How do you track these efficiencies that are, in effect, replacement of efficiencies that have not been achieved?

Director, Business Change:

There is a detailed monthly budget monitor process that goes down to individual line items of each efficiency, so we can spot what somebody has committed to which helps you with the line item in the accounts and also the value attributed to that. We can spot therefore at quite a detailed level where things have been successful and things have not been successful in the terms of the plan A. Those items will be then lifted and brought forward into 2021 because in many cases the Efficiencies Plan is for a good plan, it is just it has not been delivered in 2020. For example, there were some intentions to undertake some activity in Health and Community Services, still a great plan, they have been diverted and will just be delivered in 2021.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

That sort of covers plan A but what if it is a plan B or plan C item? Those efficiencies that have replaced other efficiencies in plan A, and unintentional efficiencies, how do you track those?

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

Exactly the same way We do the budget monitor, we do it every month end We have a tracker that not only identifies every efficiency, it identifies all the growth and it identifies precisely what you have described.

The Group Director assured the Review Panel that it was not only financial management that was tracked, but also high-performance management looking at outputs and outcomes, although he accepted that this "will develop over the next year or so".

The Review Panel was concerned that there was too great an emphasis put on the budgetary monitoring and not enough on the human' impact of delivering those efficiencies. For example, it recalls the written answer to questions it posed to the Chief Minister[54]:

The Review Panel concurs with the Chief Economist at CIPFA, who stated:[55]

Tackling complex social issues such as homelessness and chronic unemployment will require  access  to,  and  the  better  understanding  of,  community  data.  Utilising algorithms that run large datasets against demographic and other risk factors has the potential to guide better decision-making from how to distribute benefits to rapidly identifying citizens whose support needs may escalate due to the pandemic.[56]10 Global  initiatives  such  as  the  International  Network  for  Data  on  Impact  and Government Outcomes (INDIGO)[57] can help Jersey learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions as well.

Expert Advice

The Review Panel was keen to understand the use of consultants or other experts in identifying efficiencies and asked the Chief Minister and officers how they had been utilised:

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

When we asked you what expert advice you relied on to continue with the efficiencies you stated in your letter that you had specific support on development of business support models. I would like to know who carried out that work for you and can we, as a panel, see it?

Director, Business Change:

We had retained the services of a couple of people from EY to work on business support models and they will continue through, I think, until February next year; just one individual helping with the development and the proposal to the Director General and the Minister for a model within the non-education part of C.Y.P.E.S. (Children, Young People, Education and Skills). That is being developed at the moment.

The Chair also asked about the value for money of the accounting firm (Ernst & Young, or EY) in delivering budget efficiencies. The Chief Minister[58] advised he considered that the EY officers had provided excellent value for money:

Director, Business Change:

In the context of the use of EY to help sight the relevant business support model, I think it is a £40,000 cost until the end of February. The belief is that is good value investment in that there has been a good negotiation around the cost of that service and also the belief that the value of efficiencies derived from that work is multiples of their cost.

Chief Minister:

Without  going  into  details  around  what  individual  contracts  are,  for  the  sake  of argument, if you spend £100,000 on a consultant and they genuinely deliver £100,000 of savings which are recurring, it is worth doing. If they deliver more than that, it is definitely worth doing. Even if they deliver £50,000, but it is recurring, so 10 years' worth, that is £500,000 you have saved for the spend of £100,000. What we have got to make sure, we have to deliver it, not just as a report that sits on somebody's shelf.

Group Director, Treasury and Exchequer:

We also, in every one of these, get them to upskill our own people where appropriate. We have some really good skilled accountants, but equally we are doing some training with EY to make sure everybody gets the skills, for instance.

The Efficiencies Panel considers there is too great an emphasis on broad efficiency measures without acknowledging the human' impact of these efficiencies, especially where they appear counter to Common Strategic Priorities. It agreed to recommend to the Chief Minister that some of the budget for retaining expert consultants to drive efficiencies programmes should be used to research and develop social impact assessments. The consultants should also be asked to consider the human' or societal impact any proposed efficiency might have.

FINDING 8

The  Efficiencies  Panel considers  there  is  too  great  an  emphasis  on  broad efficiency  measures  without  acknowledging  the  human'  impact  of  these efficiencies, especially where they appear to run counter to Common Strategic Priorities.

RECOMMENDATION 8

Some  of  the  budget  for  retaining  expert  consultants  to  drive  efficiencies programmes should be used to research and develop social impact assessments and the consultants should also be asked to consider the human' impact any proposed efficiency might have, so as to more closely align them with the Common Strategic Priorities.

Listening to Islanders

Public Engagement

The Review Panel wanted to know how the views of Islanders had been taken into account as the Government pursued its Efficiencies programme. It noted that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel had engaged with focus groups[59] and targeted submissions in order to understand the public's view. Some of the comments are displayed below:

The Review Panel noted the following headline' results:

Furthermore, the Review Panel noted that the overall view of the focus group had been that the new Government Plan 2021-2024 would be so much better, if "there was comprehensive digestible data behind the efficiency savings data and clarity regarding the proposed additional £20 million saving." The Review Panel agrees.

It pressed the Chief Minister on his programme of public engagement[60]:  

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

When we ask you about public engagement or consultation to inform the continued efficiencies or recovery programme, specifically for the Government Plan 2021 to 2024, you said your approach is described on page 28, "Listening to Islanders". When we look at page 28: children, education, well-being, mental and physical health, economy and skills, nowhere does it say spend an enormous amount on a new office space for the government. How would you like to respond to that? How do reconcile the priority of office space for government?

The Chief Minister:

I would have said it would have been covered under what I call the overall target proficiencies, would have been the main thing, and about organisational change, which is certainly referenced elsewhere in the plan.

The Review Panel does not consider this to be a satisfactory answer and recommends that greater  emphasis  is  placed  on  the  views  of  Islanders  when  reviewing  the  Efficiencies Programme.

FINDING 9

The Government has not placed enough emphasis on its own surveys including Listening to Islanders'.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Government should invest in, monitor, and truly reflect on surveys and other indicators, to fully understand and better reflect the priorities of Islanders in any efficiency or rebalancing programme.

Conclusion

The Review Panel has been alarmed at the lack of evidence demonstrating that the ongoing Efficiencies Programme is not simply budget cutting by another name. Although it accepts there are efficiencies to be made, it is concerned that a process which continuously looks to squeeze money throughout Government departments will inevitably have a negative effect on services and ultimately the people they serve. The Review Panel fears that not enough has been done to relate the efficiencies to the Common Strategic Priorities, thereby limiting their effect on the already vulnerable and under-served members of the community. It notes that even though there is a Performance Framework [61]in place, which seeks to show how Jersey is doing on the journey to achieving sustainable wellbeing' it lacks sufficient data to be utilised properly.

The Review Panel notes that the Government intends to continue an aggressive Efficiencies Programme. The Chief Minister advised that this is a sign of a positive environment because:

"People do not want to waste money and people want to be efficient and effective. If they can do this and see they are helping the Island, helping keep taxes down, helping deliver better services, it generates its own momentum and it generates its own enthusiasm in staff. It is a good thing, I would suggest."[62]

The Review Panel does not agree. In the absence of defined programmes, we do not recognise a salami sliced' approach as meeting good practice. Failure to meet a revised expenditure/income target on the efficiency savings will eventually have negative implications on the ability of departments to meet service standards, to the detriment of the very people they are working to serve. We have shown in the report that already, in the drive to save relatively small amounts, the Government is deferring services to vulnerable people.  There is little evidence that the programme of efficiencies is based on a strict value for money approach or that it has been weighed in favour of closing the inequality gap. Rather, the changes have been driven by the acute demand for the realisation of cashable savings to bridge the budget setting gap, irrespective of the impact on services. The Review Panel concurs with the CIPFA consultant advisor to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel:

The larger components of the scheduled 2021 savings appear to be highly aspirational. For example, the £5m to be released from a zero based budget review at HCS, the release of funds from GHE in respect of the hospital maintenance programme of £4million, managing inflationary pressures around Government generating savings of £3.7million and £0.9 million associated with OneGov Modernisation Programme. In context, these broad estimates do not appear to be realistic and we have yet to see evidence that demonstrates that a high level of assurance can be obtained that shows that recurring cashable' savings can be sustained from these initiatives.[63]

Appendix 1 – Answer to Scrutiny Question at the Request of the Efficiencies  Review  Panel  and  Corporate  Services  Scrutiny Panel

Appendix 2 – Examples of Plans A/B/C in the Government Plan 2021-2024

Appendix  3  –  Letter  from  Chief  Minister  to  the  Efficiencies Review Panel, 1 October 2020

Appendix  4  –  Letter  from  Chief  Minister  to  the  Efficeincies Review Panel, 30 October 2020

Appendix 5 – Witnesses and Evidence Gathered

A Public Hearing was held with the Chief Minister on 12 November 2020.

A Private Briefing was held with the Chief Minister on 22 July, detailing his role as the Chair of the One Gov Political Oversight Group with oversight of the Efficiencies Programmes Board.

The Following Reports and Affiliate Documents were used to produce this report:

• Government Plan 2021 – 2024 (including proposition P.130/2020)

• Annex to the Government Plan 2021 - 2024

• Government Plan 2020 – 2023 (P.71/2019, R.19/2020)

• Government Plan 2020 – 2023: Further Information on Additional Revenue Expenditure and Major Projects Expenditure (R.91/2019)

• Efficiencies Plan 2020 – 2023 (R.130/2019)

• Government Plan 2020 – 2023: 6 Month Progress Review

• Government Plan Review Panel (consolidated) Scrutiny Report

• The Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on Handling Complaints

• The Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on Operational Land and Buildings

• Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019

• Efficiencies Programmes Board Closure Report (not published)

Review of the Efficiencies Plan: 2020-2023

68

States Greffe | Morier House | Halkett Place |St Helier | Jersey | JE1 1DD T: +44 (0) 1534 441 020 | E: statesgreffe@gov.je | W: Statesassembly.gov.je

[1] Government Plan 2021-2024 Annex, page 89

[2] At the time of finalising this report, we note the Council of Ministers has lodged an amendment to its Government Plan, to effectively adopt the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel's amendment, to reinstate funding for the scheme.

[3] At the fact-checking' stage of this report, the Programmes Director commented on the draft report and stated that £40 million could reasonably be achieved in an organisation the size of the Government of Jersey' (by email 14 December 2020) - the Efficiencies Review Panel stands by its wording.

[4] At the fact-checking' stage of this report, the Programmes Director commented on the draft report and stated that all departments proposed and agreed the efficiencies themselves, they were not imposed' (by email 14 December 2020) - the Efficiencies Review Panel notes that the budget was cut according to pre-Covid-19 impact considerations and therefore stands by its wording.

[5] Proposed Government Plan 2020-2023

[6] See Government Plan Table 56, p196-197. It should be noted that actual spending in 2019 was forecast at £801 million.

[7] See Government Plan Table 56, p196-197

[8] See Government Plan p110

[9] Govt Plan 2020-2023 7th Amendment: Remove Efficiencies Plan from Government Plan

[10] Government Plan: assessments of planned efficiency savings (P.88/2019), as amended

[11] Ministerial Response to GPRP Report, 9 January 2020, S.R. 13/2019. Res

[12] The Scrutiny Liaison Committee commissioned the Efficiencies Review Panel to undertake the 6 Month assessments of planned efficiencies following the adoption of the 2nd amendment to P.88/2019.

[13] Government Plan Review Panel (consolidated) Scrutiny Report

[14] Government Plan Review Panel (consolidated) Scrutiny Report

[15]15 Efficiencies Plan 2020-23

[16]16 Efficiencies Plan 2020-23

[17] Transcript of Government Plan Review Panel hearing with the Chief Minister – 10th October 2019

[18] Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy – commissioned by the Government Plan Review Panel in 2019 to review elements of the Government Plan

[19] Government Plan Review Panel (consolidated) Scrutiny Report

[20] Letter from Chief Minister to Chair of Efficiencies Review Panel, via email 1st October 2020

[21] See part 2.16, page 8 of Appendix 8 - Page 501 of report

[22] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[23] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[24] Now IHE; Infrastructure, Housing, Environment

[25] Government Plan Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 20 November 2020

[26] Government Plan Covid-19 Recovery Response November 2020 (commissioned by CSSP)

[27] At the fact-checking' stage of this report, the Programmes Director commented on the draft report, that, £20m represents approximately 2.25% of an estimated base budget spend of circa £890m. It is entirely reasonable to expect this level of efficiencies from a budget of such a size. The word aggressive is used incorrectly' - the Efficiencies Review Panel stands by its wording.

[28] CEHA Review of Government Plan 2021-2024, published December 2020

[29] Submission – Jersey Cares

[30] Submission – Brightly

[31] Transcript – Minister for Children and Housing – 30th October 2020 p.29

[32] Submission – Brightly

[33] Transcript – Minister for Children and Housing – 30th October 2020 p.30

[34] Jeffrey Matsu, Chief Economist, CIPFA – Report on Jersey Government Plan 2021-24 Covid-19 Recovery Planning Response - EIA November 2020

[35] Jersey Opinions & Lifestyle Survey Report, September 2020

[36] /assemblypropositions/2020/p.130-2020%20%20amd(3).pdf

[37] CoM amendment to 3rd amendment, lodged 7th December 2020

[38] CEHA Review of Government Plan 2021-2024, published December 2020

[39] Jeffrey Matsu, Chief Economist, CIPFA – Report on Jersey Government Plan 2021-24 Covid-19 Recovery Planning Response – commissioned by the EIA Scrutiny Panel, November 2020

[40] Council of Ministers amendment to 2nd amendment, lodged 7th December 2020

[41] Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel Public Hearing with Minister for Health and Social Services, 26 October 2020

[42] Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel Public Hearing with Minister for Health and Social Services, 26 October

2020

[43] Written Submission, Jersey Association of Carers

[44] Jeffrey Matsu, Chief Economist, CIPFA – Report on Jersey Government Plan 2021-24 Covid-19 Recovery Planning Response - EIA November 2020

[45] Impact bonds are outcomes-based contracts which focus on the outcomes rather than specific inputs or activities, therefore  designed  to  achieve  measurable  outcomes  specified  by  the  commissioner  (the  Government): https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/the-basics/impact-bonds/

[46] CEHA Review of Government Plan 2021-2024, published December 2020

[47] Care of Children in Jersey Review Panel: current review of Redress and Accountability Systems in Jersey, launched June 2020

[48] CEHA amendment to Government Plan (1st) lodged 27 November 2020

[49] CoM amendment to CEHA amendment - Ombudsman - lodged 7 December 2020

[50] 6 month progress report of Government Plan 2020

[51] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[52] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[53] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[54] Letter from Chief Minister, reproduced in full at Appendix 3, 1 October 2020

[55] Jeffrey Matsu, Chief Economist, CIPFA – Report on Jersey Government Plan 2021-24 Covid-19 Recovery Planning Response – commissioned by the CSSP Scrutiny Panel, November 2020

[56] https://www.cipfa.org/services/data-analytics/Covid19-oneview-service

[57] https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/toolkit/INDIGO-Intro2020/

[58] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[59] The full methodology used and the report from 4insight in relation to the focus groups is published on the Scrutiny website, under the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel's Government Plan 2021-2024 Review

[60] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[61] Performance Framework

[62] Efficiencies Review Panel Public Hearing with the Chief Minister 12th November 2020

[63] Government Plan Covid-19 Recovery Response November 2020 (commissioned by CSSP)