Are Francis Maude’s £5.5bn savings in central government spending a significant step forward in his battle to shrink the public sector? In today’s Telegraph, the Cabinet Office minister explains the beneficiaries and sources of the latest cutbacks:
Today I can announce that in 2011-12 we saved £5.5 billion. This is the equivalent of around £500 for each working household in Britain or enough money to fund 1.6 million primary school places.
How did we make these savings? Within the first days of this Government we introduced tough temporary spending controls. These limited expenditure on IT contracts, property, marketing, temporary staff and consultancy.
While civil service spending has steadily decreased — £3.75bn alone was saved in Maude’s first 10 months in office — it is worth noting that over the past few months, the government has borrowed more than predicted and overshot George Osborne’s targets several times. In June 2012, net borrowing was £14.4bn, up from £13.9bn in 2011 and significantly above the predicted £13.3bn. This is not a one off either — the government borrowed more than expected in February, March and April of this year too.
The 2011-2012 savings also pale in comparison to the radical halving of the civil service proposed by Steve Hilton in his parting days. Although his plans may never have been realistically considered, it highlights the de-radicalisation the Tories have undergone in this area. In their 2010 manifesto, the Tories promised £6bn cuts to non-front-line services, which were carried through to the coalition agreement. They also identified £12bn in efficiency savings across government departments, but this was not carried through to the coalition. Although they are well on their way, the government have yet to reach that target.
Although it may appear that cutting waste is one coalition promise the partners are sticking to, Matthew Elliot of the Taxpayers’ Alliance suggests that some savings may be wasted elsewhere, noting in particular significant staffing increases at the Departments for International Development, and Energy and Climate Change. If the government wants to remain proactive on freeing up taxpayers’ money, Maude and his team need to keep pressing on and take a universal and comprehensive approach to tracking down the money spent in Whitehall.
Comments