Accountability is the next big challenge
WHEN Deputy Charles Parkinson exits the States he will leave behind a document that will be central to the next Assembly succeeding or failing.
WHEN Deputy Charles Parkinson exits the States he will leave behind a document that will be central to the next Assembly succeeding or failing.
He chairs the States Strategic Plan team, being arguably one of the few members with the ability to mould the economic, social and environmental tensions that runs through it, a skill that will be missed.
The States Strategic Plan is a hefty report but incredibly important in setting out the direction of travel of the States, keeping all departments and decision-making heading on the same path by binding them together through high-level policies that override everything.
But it is all a work in progress. Areas still need to be improved, crucially including accountability.
The SSP is not designed to take politics out of the States – it leaves room for different philosophies, but acts as a framework in which that political process can take place.
That there is room for this was spelt out loudly when the report was released – the Policy Council had gone against senior civil service advice in deciding which new services should have money spent on them – recommending ploughing money into projects which they were advised did not have enough evidence to justify them.
'The question of public expenditure is still a political process, that's what we're elected to do, we act on the advice of the civil service, but don't have to agree with it,' said Deputy Parkinson.
He believes the SSP has been instrumental in achieving a significant cultural change in the States – a more cohesive and joined-up approach to government.
But there is still some way to go.
'We haven't really developed accountability within the States, various structural changes have taken place at the top of the civil service, but I think there are various improvements that could be made,' he said.
'In terms of giving a direction, what we have got now can work in the existing structures. But accountability for delivering these objectives is rather weak.'
There is an element of performance monitoring in the SSP, a report that shows in limited areas whether targets set are being met.
'At the moment these documents are prepared almost just for interest. What we don't do is say if someone is failing to meet a performance target, perhaps we should bring them in for a chat. There's no follow up in terms of non-delivery or underperformance against the targets.
'That needs to be addressed.'
Hitting or exceeding targets could be the basis for performance-related pay increases, he said.
Strengthening scrutiny in this whole process will be key – both in terms of service delivery and financial performance.
Deputy Parkinson said the Scrutiny Committee and Public Accounts Committees roles need to be re-imagined, but that could only happen with improved accountability.
Both committees issue reports on whether targets are met or not, but they are not recognised for doing anything about it if there is a failure.
'If we had proper accountability, so Scrutiny could play its part in holding individual departments and staff to account for service delivery, the role would be seen as important.'
There is a danger in the public sector of staff not knowing what the goals and expectations are, a potentially demoralising thing.
The future could also bring a different approach to budgeting.
With capital spending, there is a six-year plan, but at the moment on revenue spending the plan only goes as far as a year.
'One of the key aspects we point out is we need to move to three-year budgets for departments so they have some longer-term perspective in which to plan for their developments. The other aspect is at the moment budgets tend to be pretty much what the department got last year, plus a bit for inflation, add in a bit for new service developments, take a bit off for efficiencies. We haven't asked departments to go back to square one, say what do you need to do, how much money to do it.'
This kind of zero-based budgeting is on the cards, just not yet. For it to happen, management of information needs to improve, something proposed upgrades to the States computer system aims to achieve.
Better quality information should mean improving the judgements needed for zero-based budgeting.
Another key step in the evolution of the SSP is the creation of an infrastructure plan.
'We just keep tripping over problems we haven't seen. We don't see them because we are not looking,' said Deputy Parkinson. 'We had no forward planning, no awareness.'
The plan will inform the next capital programme in 2014, meaning evidence-based decision-making and should ensure £80m. surprises like the airport project no longer come out of nowhere.
Last time the capital programme was pretty much based on a wish-list of what departments wanted, which was then whittled down to priorities.
The SSP has a growing influence over the success or otherwise of the States.
Current members have embraced it and educating the next Assembly will be important if the plan's influence is to grow and become more successful.
Bringing real accountability will be the next big challenge and test the current consensus model and structure of the States itself.
Real questions still need to be addressed about the decision-making processes of the States and how they are mirrored in the public sector.
The current structure may work, but does it work as effectively as it should?
