Perhaps another criteria that should provide input into any re-consideration of the Committee structure is adopting the proposition ‘Government should only do, what Government alone can do’. Or perhaps more correctly, should only do what is makes more financial sense to do than any other sector or provider.
but are we hanging on to an outdated Committee system to deal with it all successfully?
Bear in mind also, that the continuing dependence on (and availability of) technology is going to change things too. For example, consider how much Islanders now spend online on sites like Amazon now compared to 10 years ago. Think too what that means for our economy and particularly the impact on local retailers, the people they employ and the taxes all of that raises – or no longer raises. Government has been trying to improve its own efficiency and productivity using technology and that journey has encountered its own problems. The objective however remains the same: access to Government (or much of it), 24 hours a day, driven by you the users. Delivering on that opportunity would certainly reduce a proportion of Government posts (or more likely, the necessity to keep growing), but it will cost a lot to get to that position and it will still cost to maintain all of that technology if we do.
But there is a caveat – and it is over Health provision yet again: the ‘growth’ across Government headcount (full time equivalents or FTEs), has very largely been to service the burgeoning needs of Islanders for medical-related (or care-related) demand. It has not been (as is popularly supposed), to add scores of ‘jobworths’. On top of which, new needs have emerged which require additional skills – or simply more capacity. Think in terms of all of the new international demands following Brexit or to comply with new regulatory frameworks for things like Moneyval assessment. Or, conversely, our Revenue department has struggled to cope with the design and introduction of new technology against a backdrop of multiple vacancies that simply are very challenging to fill and a backlog of returns.
The point being, the needs of Islanders and our economy has and is changing, but are we hanging on to an outdated Committee system to deal with it all successfully? But if it does need to change, then how do we effect that given the lack of resources available? How do we mutate into a more effective Government and what does that then mean for our Deputies and their participation in it?
To recap (if you have been following so far)
- Guernsey is subscale and cannot provide all of the services of a larger jurisdiction
- That is also the reason we cannot expect those we do provide to be at the same cost
- We have to identify our Universal Offer in relation to those services we do provide
- We have to identify what ‘User Pays’ then means as a consequence
- Demand for services (and particularly Healthcare) outstrips supply
- Committee responsibilities are unequal, yet we allocate the same amount of Deputies to each
- Technology is evolving, both in terms of capability and expected access
- Whatever new system is adopted, it has to be at the least possible cost to remain successful
The foregoing list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate the scale of the challenge, and perhaps most importantly, candidates for the role of Deputy should not be under any illusion about why developing an improved Government system and the services it provides is a considerable undertaking – but must be attempted. Nevertheless, I am going to give it a ‘starter for 10’ in Part 3.
