Ministerial Response - Government Plan 2020-2023 - Government Plan Review Panel - 9 January 2020

Findings

Comments

1

Greater co-operation from Government prior to the Plan being lodged would have allowed for a smoother scrutiny process.

We  will  be  looking  to  continue  to  work  with Scrutiny  to  improve  the  process  for  the  next Government  Plan.  It  is  noted  however,  that briefings were given early in the process to the Scrutiny  Liaison  Committee,  with  the  first  on 28th February  and  a  subsequent  briefing  on 20th June.

2

Scrutiny requires more time in future to undertake scrutiny of the Government Plan.

Scrutiny  have  not  indicated  how  much  time ideally  they  would  require  to  scrutinise  a Government  Plan.  The  Government  Plan  was lodged for a period of 18 weeks (from 22nd July to  26th  November)  in  order  to  give  Scrutiny additional time to review the Government Plan. This  is  unprecedented  and  well  exceeds  the requirements  of  Standing  Orders,  which  only require that the Government Plan be lodged for a period  of  12 weeks,  as  was  the  position  for previous MTFPs. Previously, budgets were only required to be lodged for a period of 8 weeks.

3

The availability of Ministers for hearings was inadequate during the summer period.

Ministers made themselves available for scrutiny hearings and requests for information throughout the  Government  Plan  period,  including  the summer recess. Whilst there may have been a small number of occasions when dates needed to be re-arranged, it must be remembered that over

Findings

Comments

the  18 weeks  given  to  Scrutiny  to  review  the Plan,  Ministers  and  Scrutiny  Panels  will  have had  other  commitments  to  meet,  and  as  such, finding a mutually agreeable date is always going to be necessary.

4

The scrutiny process suffered due to information not being provided in a timely manner.

We will be looking to improve the process for the next Government Plan.

5

Not enough information has been placed in the public domain.

We will be looking to improve the process for the next Government Plan.

6

There is a lack of detailed financial information in the Government Plan.

The  Government  Plan  is  intended  to  be  a strategic  document,  which  sets  out  what Government will deliver over the period.

The  level  of  financial  information  included  is intended  to  be  sufficient  to  support  these strategic activities, and more detailed plans and budgets fit into departmental plans, and indeed operational plans.

It is not appropriate to include overly granular financial information in a strategic document for a £1 billion organisation.

7

The Government has effectively presented Modernising Government as a sixth CSP priority without seeking the formal approval of the Assembly.

This is simply incorrect. The 5 headings within the  Modernising  Government'  section  were unanimously agreed by the States Assembly as part of the Common Strategic Policy. They were previously titled Ongoing Initiatives', as found on  page 22  of  R.11/2019 "Common  Strategic Policy 2018–22", but this heading was amended to make it more understandable and transparent for the general public. This is an improvement that should be welcomed rather than incorrectly criticised, and is clearly identified on page 92 of the Government Plan.

8

Better linkages are needed between Government Plan Actions and new programmes, as well as better budget information and performance measures.

Agreed – This is an ambition we will achieve through  the  transformation  of  finance  and  the better use of data across services, linking finance, performance and outcomes. We will continue to work towards this in the next, and subsequent, Government Plans.

However, it should be noted that the costing of actions  and  initiatives  develops  alongside  the development of the action itself. It is possible to estimate the cost of delivering an outcome based on experience and available data, but this will be refined  as  options  are  explored  and  preferred solutions selected.

Findings

Comments

New systems and the new target operating model are  pivotal  in  allowing  this  ambition  to  be realised.

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.

The  time  available  for  Scrutiny  was approximately 5 weeks from when the Efficiency Plan  was  published.  It  should  be  noted  that Scrutiny received most of the efficiencies earlier than  the  formal  document's  publication,  in tranches,  shortly  after  each  was  seen  by  the Council of Ministers. In addition, P.88/2019 has also been adopted by the Assembly.

10

The published business cases lacked the necessary financial breakdown required for proper scrutiny and were inconsistent.

R.91/2019 included  additional  information  on each  of  the  lines  of  investment  in  the Government  Plan  to  help  support  the  public, Scrutiny  and  States  Members  to  consider  the Plan.

A  key  objective  in  the  T&E  Departmental Delivery Plan is to roll out the HMT Green Book methodology  in  an  effective  and  proportionate way, which  will ensure that the  right level of information  for  decision-making  is  collated based on the size of the investment, the stage of development, and other relevant factors such as strategic importance.

As this methodology embeds in the organisation the consistency of information will be enhanced. However, the level of detail may vary, and it will still be necessary to summarise in some cases – a detailed  business  case  may  run  to  several hundred pages.

11

The Government Plan fails to explicitly address how Actions take the sustainable well-being of Islanders into account.

The  Government  Plan  actions  link  to  the 5 priorities in the Common Strategic Policy. The Government Plan is structured in a way (Part 2) that shows which activities will contribute and support each CSP priority. This is a shift from previous MTFPs, where expenditure was shown against  departments  rather  than  outcomes  for Islanders.

Each  CSP  priority  is  a  wellbeing  outcome  in itself.  Overall,  the  CSP  priorities  reflect  the sustainable  wellbeing  areas  as  defined  by  the Public  Finances  (Jersey)  Law  2019,  and  by

international sustainable wellbeing frameworks, such as the OECD Better Life Index and the UN Sustainable  Development  Goals.  The  activities and underlying business cases provide the clear explanation of how each activity contributes to the relevant CSP priority and wellbeing outcome.

Findings

Comments

However,  the  narrative  could  have  provided more detail on the contribution they will make to a particular sustainable wellbeing outcome.

Several proposed financial measures will have a positive long-term impact for future generations of  Islanders;  for  example,  the  increase  of  the Social Security Fund, the Climate Change Fund and increases in tobacco and alcohol duties. The linkage  to  the  relevant  CSP  priorities  and wellbeing outcomes has not been made for these financial  measures,  and  could  have  been incorporated into Part 2 of the Government Plan to show the positive long-term impact they will have for future generations. This has been noted and will be addressed in the next Government Plan.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

Government should share information on the structure and presentation of the Government Plan at an earlier stage.

CM

Accept

Although  we  did  provide  information on the structure and presentation of the Government Plan to Scrutiny we will be looking to improve the process for the next  Government  Plan.  As  noted  in Finding 1 however Government initially engaged  with  the  Scrutiny  Liaison Committee as early as February.

April 2020

2

If Government plans to lodge major policies around the time of a period of recess, consideration must be given to extending the time available to Scrutiny.

CM

Neither accept nor reject

This was the rationale for lodging the first Government Plan 18 weeks prior to the  States'  debate,  rather  than  the statutorily-required 12 weeks.

N/A

3

Ministers should ensure that they make themselves available for hearings during the entire period of scrutiny of the Government Plan.

CM

Reject

As stated in the Finding that relates to this  recommendation,  given  that Ministers attended 15 Scrutiny hearings, and  officers  provided  in  excess  of 20 briefings  with  Scrutiny  Panels throughout  the  Government  Plan process, it  is  clear  that Ministers  and officers did make every effort to make themselves available for Scrutiny.

N/A

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

4

Full business cases and other relevant background material should be provided to Scrutiny upfront and in full at the time the Government Plan is lodged.

CM

Accept

We agree that relevant information will be shared with Scrutiny as soon as it is available in an appropriate form.

The level of detail in business cases will vary collated based on the size of the investment, the  stage  of development, and  other  relevant  factors  such  as strategic  importance.  We  are  also conscious of the demands on Scrutiny and aim to share information in a way which supports the process – rather than providing  too  much  information  that would obscure the key points.

Before  the  next  Government  Plan  we would  be  happy  to  brief  Scrutiny Officers on the updated Business Case process to improve understanding and help them support Scrutiny Panels.

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

5

Department budgets and business plans should accompany the Government Plan at the time of lodging.

CM

Reject

This is unlikely to be possible due to the process of forming a Government Plan.

The Government Plan sets the direction of  Government.  Departments,  then looks at how this is supported by each department.  Whilst  this  is  partly  how the  Government  Plan  is  developed,  it would  be  hugely  wasteful  and inefficient  to  iterate  and  update Departmental  Plans  alongside  the Government  Plan  itself, and  far  more appropriate to draft once the direction has been set, as has been the case during earlier MTFP processes.

Similarly, the Government Plan sets out how  resources  will  be  allocated  at  a strategic level to deliver the priorities of Government.  In  turn,  departmental budgets should be set to support these business plans, and so it is appropriate that  activities  and  objectives  are developed  at  a  departmental  level before allocating budgets at this detailed departmental level. The level of detail of budgeting commonly develops closer to the period of operation – for example the  NAO  Financial  Maturity  Model includes as best practice the setting of

N/A

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

detailed budgets one to 2 months before the beginning of the financial year.

Any  detailed  budget  set  6 months before the start of the period will almost certainly require re-working before the start of the year.

6

More detailed information should be made available to the public. This could be in a separate document/ set of documents so as not to make the main Government Plan document too large.

CM

Accept

We  will  be  looking  to  improve  the process for the next Government Plan.

July 2020

7

There needs to be a greater emphasis on the Government Plan as a budget document, rather than a policy document.

CM

Accept and noted

The  Government  Plan  deliberately places  greater  emphasis  than  previous MTFPs  and  Budgets  on  how  funding will be spent, and what is expected to be delivered  and  achieved  as  a  result  of that  funding.  The  Chief  Minister  has already  committed  to  including  a greater level of detail (on efficiencies and departmental budgets) at the time of lodging the next Government Plan, but considers the overall structure to be a positive  improvement  that  will  be maintained.

The  following  extracts  from  external reports  support  the  Chief  Minister's view:

CIPFA (the Corporate Services Panel's

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

• "However, a real improvement over the  approaches  used  in  the construction of previous MTFPs is the  attempt  to  model  corporate priorities alongside their financing with  a  focus  on  the  delivery  of outcomes. Such an improvement is reflected within our scoring."

• "The  Government  Plan  clearly outlines service priorities in a way that previous MTFPs have not and attempts to integrate priorities with estimated/ planned  financial

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

exposure –  this  is  not  commonly evident within UK equivalents."

 "On financial strategy formulation there  is  clear  strategic  direction, strong corporate co-ordination and for the first time real direction on performance  management  delivery and officer accountability."

Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

• "CIPFA  were  positive  about  the overall structure and presentation of the Government Plan, but critical of the lack of detail within it."

• "For the first time, the Government Plan  also  links  spending  with outcomes  and  service  priorities, which CIPFA have complemented."

• "CIPFA told us that this was one of the  strengths  of  the  Government Plan: The Government Plan clearly outlines service priorities in a way that previous MTFPs have not and attempts to integrate priorities with estimated/ planned  financial exposure –  this  is  not  common within UK public bodies."

Comptroller  and  Auditor  General  (in

"the  Government  Plan  is  more accessible and clearly links expenditure to  strategic  priorities  and  desired outcomes".

8

The Government should not make unilateral decisions on broad policy direction without the approval of the Assembly. On this basis, Modernising Government should not have been effectively presented as a sixth CSP priority but as a standalone, supportive section.

CM

Reject

As stated in the response to Finding 7, this is incorrect. The 5 headings within the Modernising Government' section of the Government Plan were agreed by the  States  Assembly  as  part  of  the Common Strategic Policy. The subtitle was changed from Ongoing Initiatives' to Modernising Government' to make it more understandable and transparent for  the  general  public.  This  was  a change of label, rather than a change of policy.

N/A

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

9

New programmes are to link to specific Actions which, in turn, are to be outcomes focussed, fully costed and measurable.

CM

Accept

This  is  an  ambition  we  will  achieve through  the  transformation  of  finance and  the  better  use  of  data  across services,  linking  finance,  performance and  outcomes.  We  will  continue  to work  towards  this  in  the  next,  and subsequent Government Plans.

However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the costing  of  actions  and  initiatives develops alongside the development of the  action  itself.  It  is  possible  to estimate  the  cost  of  delivering  an outcome  based  on  experience  and available data, but this will be refined as options  are  explored  and  preferred solutions selected.

New  systems  and  the  new  target operating model are pivotal in allowing this ambition to be realised.

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

10

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

CM

Accept

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

11

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

CM

Neither accept nor reject

General definitions of efficiencies, and classifications  of  each  proposed efficiency, will continue to be  clearly set out in future plans.

N/A

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.

CM

Accept

Detailed  efficiency  proposals  will  be published with the Government Plan.

Each proposal will include:

- description  of  the  current  state  and proposed efficiency

- description of the financial context

- impact analysis on customer service, workforce, CSP alignment

- certain efficiencies will also be impact assessed against economic impact and patient safety

- risks and mitigating actions

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

- requirement  for  legal  or  regulatory changes

- approach to measurement.

This may or may not include individual business cases.

13

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

CM

Accept

As  stated  in  response  to  the Government Plan Review Panel, rather than  business  cases  (which  will continue to be used to propose revenue and  capital  growth  bids)  detailed efficiency proposals will be published with the Government Plan.

Each proposal will include:

- description  of  the  current  state  and proposed efficiency

- description of the financial context

- impact analysis on customer service, workforce, CSP alignment

- certain efficiencies will also be impact assessed against economic impact and patient safety

- risks and mitigating actions

- requirement  for  legal  or  regulatory changes

- approach to measurement.

Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

14

Business plans such as those found in the

R.91 document should contain a more detailed breakdown of, and justification for, spending and also need to be more consistent.

CM

Neither accept nor reject

Consider for Gov. Plan 2021 sub- mission July 2020

R.91/2019 included  additional information  on  each  of  the  lines  of investment in the Government Plan to help  support  the  public,  Scrutiny  and the States Members consider the plan.

A  key  objective  in  the  T&E Departmental  Delivery  Plan  is  to  roll out the HMT Green Book methodology in an effective and proportionate way, which will ensure that the right level of information  for  decision-making  is collated  based  on  the  size  of  the investment, the  stage  of development, and  other  relevant  factors  such  as strategic importance.

As  this  methodology  embeds  in  the organisation,  the  consistency  of information will be enhanced. However,

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

the level of detail may vary, and it will still be necessary to summarise in some cases – a detailed business case may run to several hundred pages.

15

The performance framework for Government Plan Actions, to be developed in January 2020, needs to include details on how the sustainable well-being of Islanders has been taken into account in Government Plan proposals and how this will be measured.

CM

Accept

The  performance  framework  is currently being developed to provide a national  framework  for  measuring sustainable wellbeing of Islanders and future generations. All measures in the proposed  Government Plan have  been included and more have been added. It will  be  made  publicly  available  to provide a transparent tool for Islanders on how wellbeing is measured and what progress is being made.

January 2020

16

All future Government Plans need to include details on how the sustainable well-being of Islanders has been taken into account in Government Plan proposals and how this will be measured.

CM

Accept

This  is  already  being  considered  and will  be  implemented  in  the  next Government Plan process.

July 2020