Everyone agrees that government waste should be cut. The disagreement begins when someone has to explain what, precisely, counts as waste. It is easy enough to say “Cut the waste” in a broadcast interview. It is rather harder to identify it, quantify it properly, remove it without breaking something useful, and then show that the supposed saving has not simply reappeared elsewhere wearing a different departmental badge.
There is undoubtedly waste in government: failed IT contracts, duplicated systems, consultant dependency, unnecessary property, weak fraud controls, grants that outlive their purpose, and procurement procedures so elaborate that they seem designed chiefly to employ themselves. That is where the work should start.
A sensible approach is the 80/20 rule. Not as a law of nature, because it is not one, but as a practical management discipline. In a large organisation, a relatively small number of failures often account for a disproportionate share of avoidable cost. A handful of dreadful contracts, abandoned projects, duplicated back-office systems, suppliers charging monopoly prices for mediocre work, and badly designed incentives can waste remarkable sums. Find those, fix those, and measure the result.
If an audit identifies £5 billion of possible savings, begin with the large, repeated and demonstrably useless costs. Stop projects that should never have started. Merge functions that genuinely duplicate one another. Renegotiate contracts that have become a licence to print money. Recover fraud. Stop paying consultants to map processes which everybody in the department already knows are absurd. That is real reform. It can cut costs and improve services at the same time.
But there is an important question for anyone claiming to have identified £5 million, £5 billion or any other conveniently impressive figure of “waste savings”: what will it cost to remove it? That is the question which separates the operator from the rhetorician. Anyone can circle a number in a report. The serious bit is calculating the staff time, systems changes, legal work, procurement, redundancy costs, extra controls needed to stop the waste returning, and service disruption required to achieve it. Then one has to check whether the saving has merely been pushed into another budget, or deferred until it comes back later at a higher price.
The trouble begins when politicians treat that £5 billion as though every pound of it can be extracted without cost. It cannot. There is a law of diminishing returns. The first savings may be straightforward, but the next tranche is harder. Eventually, the remaining “waste” is scattered across thousands of small decisions, local contingencies, bits of spare capacity, checks, records and safeguards. At that point, chasing the final scraps can cost more than accepting them.
You get more audits, reporting, approval stages, tender exercises, compliance officers and managers checking whether someone else has checked whether another person has saved £17.50. The system becomes so determined to demonstrate thrift that it turns into an expensive machine for measuring paperclips. That is not efficiency. It is bureaucracy doing an expensive impression of thrift.
Some inefficiency must be tolerated. Not because incompetence is endearing, nor because public money grows on a shrub behind the Treasury, but because a functioning state needs a margin of slack. It needs people who are not already working at 100% capacity when a crisis arrives. It needs proper records, basic checks, training, maintenance and enough legal care to avoid turning a bad decision into 3 years of litigation. It needs reserve capacity in hospitals, courts, local authorities and emergency services, because life has a tiresome habit of refusing to arrive in neat, predictable instalments.
The private sector understands this perfectly well. A serious company keeps spare parts, duplicate systems, insurance, lawyers, contingency funds and stock in reserve. It does not call this waste. It calls it resilience, risk management and overhead. When government does the same thing, however, the very people who would complain if the system failed suddenly discover the word “bureaucracy”.
The human body makes the point neatly enough. It does not turn every calorie into visible movement. A great deal is spent on balance, repair, temperature control, circulation and remaining alive. Nobody regards that as a design failure. A living system needs overhead to remain functional. A modern state is not a combustion engine either. It is a complex system expected to cope with error, fraud, legal challenge, surges in demand and the occasional national crisis.
Some spending does not show up as a neat front-line output because it pays for maintenance, training, proper procurement, legal checks, information security and the ability to cope when demand rises unexpectedly. The important distinction is not between efficiency and inefficiency. It is between waste and productive friction.
Waste is paying twice for the same thing, funding programmes that do not work, allowing suppliers to milk the public purse, retaining layers of administration that add no value, or paying external advisers a fortune to recommend that a department might perhaps consider speaking to its own staff. Productive friction is the modest cost of making sure public money is not stolen, contracts are checked, decisions are lawful, vulnerable people are not abandoned because a caseworker had no time to read the file, and nobody awards a £200 million contract to a mate over lunch.
There is another trap: cost-shunting. A department can meet a savings target by cutting prevention, maintenance or casework, only for the cost to arrive later in another budget. Cut support for vulnerable families and the bill may return through homelessness, policing, the NHS, schools or the courts. Cut maintenance and it may return as emergency repairs at several times the cost. Cut compliance and it may return as fraud, tax loss and expensive private contracts. Whitehall may call that a saving because the cost has moved department. The taxpayer is entitled to notice that it has not disappeared.
The serious question is not, “How large a saving figure can we announce?” It is, “Which costs can we remove, what will it cost to remove them, and will the state still be less expensive and more capable afterwards?” A credible programme would set targets based on named reforms, published evidence and independently audited results. It would show lower unit costs, fewer failed contracts, reduced fraud, shorter delays and better service reliability. It would not simply announce a heroic number and hope the public mistakes arithmetic for administration.
The test is simple: does the state cost less while delivering the same or better result? If a supposed £1 saving requires £1.20 of extra auditors, compliance staff, delay, management time and remedial spending elsewhere, then it is not a saving. It is an ideological preference dressed up as efficiency.
The aim is not a theoretically perfect state with zero waste. That would require an army of people checking the work of another army of people. The aim is more modest and more intelligent: find the 20% of failures causing most of the waste, deal with them properly, tolerate the small margin of inefficiency needed to keep a complex country functioning, and do not save pennies today by creating much larger bills tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment