The familiar roster of this government's failings have been rehearsed yet again, and this time where it will hurt the government most - its much-beloved efficiency programme.
Targets have been set without prior consultation; claimed savings are in doubt; and there is no evidence that the structures are in place to ensure the government can make the further savings in public spending that it has outlined. Those were the main findings of the Commons' Treasury sub-committee report earlier this week, following its investigation into the government's efficiency programme.
Moreover, the usual nostrums are recommended, chiefly more joined-up government: the report says that if the additional £15bn of savings are to be made, on top of the £35bn already planned, "considerable co-operation"
between departments will be needed. "We have yet to see evidence that the necessary structures are in place to facilitate such co-operation," says the report, which calls on the government to outline the practical steps taken towards this end.
The report also wants a single, annual report on the whole government efficiency programme, to ensure figures are clear, rather than individual reports from different departments. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP who chairs the Treasury sub-committee, said the Treasury would be the logical department to co-ordinate the government's overall approach to efficiency.
But measuring exactly how much money the government can save could, in itself, be costly, according to Dr Jennifer Law, principal lecturer in the social sciences department at Glamorgan University. Law told the sub-committee that it was "vital" for organisations to have accurate information - but warned that collecting this information could be costly.
The government also does things the wrong way round, regularly introducing systems to validate savings only after efficiency programmes have been launched. Not only is this illogical, but it leads to a situation where, for instance, the chief finance director at HM Revenue & Customs did not know how much the merger between the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise had saved.
Moreover, the figures in the government's operational efficiency programme were chosen, say the MPs, "without prior consultation" with departments. The report wants the planning of public finances to be run using a "more business-led approach", rather than setting an "arbitrary" target.
Poor staff morale is also highlighted in the report and underlines the difficulties that public managers face in managing through the budget restraints that are expected in public spending. HMRC has faced proportionally greater staff cuts, because it is such a large department, with a headcount reduction "directed very much from the top", said Fallon. That has resulted in plummeting morale - the ratio of staff satisfied to be working for the department has halved in just three years, from 32% to a mere 16%.
Low staff morale at HMRC has been caused, in part, by uncertainty about the future, a lack of understanding about the chosen efficiency targets, especially when service quality is perceived to have fallen, and increased pressure - having to do the same job with less resources. That's going to be a familiar story; and the sub-committee wants better communication with staff and a commitment that training, in particular, will not suffer as a result of its efficiency programme.
Different approaches, such as the lean system, have been tried, but with mixed success, said Fallon. "I can see what they are getting at, but again it is all driven from the top," he said. Another problem affecting morale is that when cuts are made, the benefits aren't recouped by each department itself.
The report may, however, prove a welcome shove forward for the government's somewhat stalled shared services programme. Fallon said there is "huge scope" for departments and agencies to share services in areas such as payroll, departmental accounting and HR. His committee was "very struck" he said by the evidence from Martin Read, former chairman of Logica, on the fact that big savings can still be made in such areas, with savings of up to 25% still possible, despite these back office functions having been highlighted in the original Gershon efficiency review.
"I feel quite strongly that if an organisation is in the bottom quartile, they shouldn't even be doing those things," he said, adding that the forthcoming budget restraints will accelerate the consolidation of such services within government.
