Coalition cuts have saved 3.75bn in eight months, says Francis Maude
Minister taunts Labour over election argument, claiming Conservatives' efficiency target exceeded by 500m
The government has achieved 3.75bn in savings over the 10 months from the election in May 2010 to this March, leading the cabinet office minister Francis Maude to muse on what his Labour predecessors, including Ed Miliband, "had been doing in this office before me".
The savings have been vetted by the government's auditors, and are what Maude described as "the low-hanging fruit" before further, significant savings are made in coming years. Maude said that the bulk of the cash had come from cutting waste, and not from cutting services.
The Conservative claim that savings could finance cuts in national insurance was one of the chief battlegrounds of the last election. Maude said that his figures showed the Conservatives had been proved right.
The Tories wrong-footed Labour in the campaign by gathering business support to endorse the efficiency savings and condemn Labour's national insurance rise as a jobs tax.
The Conservatives had promised to cut 3.2bn in wasteful spending as part of a wider package of 6.2bn overall cuts in 2010-11.
The efficiency savings target had been exceeded by 500m, said Maude.
He said the savings from central government departments were equivalent to the salaries of 200,000 junior nurses, or 150,000 secondary school teachers.
"These savings prompt me to ask what on earth my predecessors in this office such as Ed Miliband were doing," he said.
In terms of government property sold, Maude said it was equivalent in area to 70 Wembley football pitches.
He said "We have just got started on this. This is the low-hanging fruit, but there is a lot more to come, especially in reducing fraud and error, increasing online delivery of services, and opening up public services to competition from the mutual and private sector."
Savings made include 870m from cutting departmental spending on consulting, 500m by redu! cing spe nding on temporary staff, 800m from renegotiating deals with large government suppliers, 400m cut in government advertising and communications, 90m through better controls of property lease renewals, and a 300m cut in the civil service salaries bill through a reduction of staffing equivalent to 17,000 places.
"It is about bearing down on things, as we did within days of coming into office. I just said that no new property lease, or lease renewal, could go ahead without it passing my desk first.
"There was an attitude [under Labour] that, if the government wanted something done, they would set up an advertising campaign and a website. We have just cut that out."
He said he was not willing to put a number on how large the efficiencies might be in the future, partly since it would be harder to distinguish the savings made by a government department, as opposed to a centrally driven efficiiency programme. He added a target could also become the limit of what should be saved when he said the figure could be higher.
Ian Watmore, chair of the cabinet office efficiency and reform group, last month told MPs on the public accounts committee that some of the savings had been driven by Maude personally, but said "the focus was moving away from a central push".
Ministers also want to see the driving down of costs, including renegotiations with suppliers to extend from Whitehall to other parts of the public sector such as the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade.
Watmore has claimed nearly a quarter of the 81bn projected cut in government spending over four years can come from central government "applying real aggressive efficiencies to itself".
Critics have claimed that some savings are bogus, becdause some renegotiated IT contracts led to the provision of a more limited service. Similarly, cuts in civil service numbers may lead to a cut in service standard rather than greater efficiency.
The efficiency board chaired by the former BP chairman Lord Browne is ! also foc using on improving data quality so efficiency can be better measured between departments.
Comments