Island rule evolution, not revolution
SOME two years on since the words good governance entered the political lexicon in Guernsey, the financial watchdog is back with a progress report on how the States is performing.
SOME two years on since the words good governance entered the political lexicon in Guernsey, the financial watchdog is back with a progress report on how the States is performing.
Good governance has become a buzz word to throw in when trying to sound authoritative. According to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, it means 'doing the right things, in the right way, for the right people, in a timely, inclusive, open, honest and accountable manner'.
When the Public Accounts Committee commissioned the Wales Audit Office to carry out the original report into the issue, its message was clear - the States was not guaranteeing the public value for money.
A few rallied against its findings and continue to do so, but even so the Public Accounts Committee tells us that steps forward have been made.
With things like the States Strategic Plan attempting to pull decision-making together, improvements in accounting procedures and the Financial Transformation Programme, there is evidence that States 2011 is a better place then the 2009 version.
PAC's report, which will be debated in March, will ask for the six principles of good governance to be adopted - and more importantly, attempt to put a process in place which would mean they are followed.
What it does not do is provide real concrete benchmarks to measure progress against. If 2009 was a zero with none of the six principles fully complied with, where exactly are we now?
It may well have been a step too far at this stage.
There should be little argument against the principles, but there may well be against the consequences of the ways forward suggested in the report.
Although these are not directed by resolutions, deputies often get spooked by the devil-in-the-detail arguments.
PAC says that there are areas for improvement, but it is not prescriptive in how to achieve it.
'Improving governance further will help ensure that government can perform in a more effective, efficient and cost-effective way,' its report states.
'The committee's intention is to act as a critical friend to encourage and promote better governance within the States. In delivering this report, the committee is conscious that while it has given a number of specific examples to illustrate the opportunity for improvement in governance, it fully recognises that recently the States has made real progress towards improved governance. This in turn will provide better value for money on a number of fronts.'
Its report takes each of the six principles and assesses what the problems were, what has been done last year to make progress and what could help in the future.
Taking just one of those, 'good governance means taking informed, transparent decisions and managing risk', the evidence of the need for change is overwhelming.
Work on a new waste strategy began in July 1994 and two failed solutions and more than £8m. later is still ongoing.
The States backed a transport strategy in 1989 and agreed to paid parking to help fund it in 2003. It failed to agree on a rate and now Environment is under a new direction to report back on a comprehensive, sustainable and integrated road transport strategy.
Student loans? Agreed to in October 2007 and then put to one side in September 2008.
Social Security's new computer system is given as another example and we still wait for the report on taking away its devolved responsibility for capital projects.
And the progress last year? An Island Risk Register was completed, the Strategic Land Use Plan debated in consultation form, as part of the FTP a template for business cases for new service developments and capital projects has been developed to provide consistency, a communication strategy is being developed and progress on States resolutions is being monitored.
The way forward?
PAC suggests having a two-stage decision making process like the UK - a Green Paper so that a subject is explored and the mood tested and White Paper for the final decision.
'This would provide the opportunity to explore and challenge decisions at an early stage, could reduce the need for requetes and could prove cost-effective by reducing abortive work in preparing detailed proposals which are subsequently rejected by the States,' it said.
PAC also talks of being proactive rather than reactive in communications.
There is no sign of a revolution within the committee's report, more a steady evolution to getting better systems in place for running the island.
After an Assembly direction, it steered well clear of the structure of government - some will still argue the States will always struggle to perform to its potential without addressing this but that is a debate, it seems, for another day.
