[BBC News]Change plan for Manx government

[Newsbot]

The Isle of Man government needs to be restructured to give better value for money, an independent review concludes.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/5384800.stm

[Owen]

Document here if anyone's interested:

http://www.gov.im/lib/news/cso/reviewofthescope.xml

 

I've had a quick flick and I've found the first bit pretty interesting (at least for a relative newcomer). It goes into the current structure of Government and through the historic development of how things work today. Haven't actually got to the meat of the recommendations yet ....

 

 

--------------------

[Roger Smelly]

Well i have just had a flick through the reform report and its very good.

 

Basically it is saying that the goverment have departments that are not preforming well for the amount of funding they receive.

 

Here is a few things the report recommend.

 

Buses = Corporatise/Privatise

 

NSC = Contract Out

 

Tourism Events = Contract Out

 

Villa Marina/Gaiety Theatre = Contract Out

 

Airport = Corporatise

 

Harbours = Corporatise

 

Works Division (D.O.T) = Contract Out

 

Quarries = Contract Out

 

Knockaloe Farm = Contract Out

 

Commercial Forestry = Contract Out

 

Fish Hatcheries = Contract Out

 

Water Authority = Corporatise

 

MEA = Corporatise/Privatise

 

Post Office = Corporatise/Privatise

 

 

Basically what they are telling the government is that it needs to streamline now or in the future they regret not doing it.

 

They want to see a end of areas of government that do not give good value for money.

 

I cannot wait to see what bernard has to say about it lol.

 

O yeah and Mr Moocher's department needs to be scrapped as its a white elephant.

[Gladys]

That is all well and good, but who are they going to contract out these services to? We also should be very wary of creating yet more government sponsored monopolies without some control over the service levels/performance/profitability.

 

Having said that, I think streamlining government is a good idea, in principle.

[Ushtey]

Playing devil's advocate for a second, it also could be interpreted as:

 

- the role of MHK's be "dumbed down" and that they are kept at a distance from a position of responsibility

- a number of roles should be passed to local commissioners without recommending how they would find the staffing, funds or experience/ability to manage them or how they would ensure consistency across the Island in areas such as planning

- by transferring responsibilities between departments it is assumed they will become more productive

- it fails to make reference to the commitments made by Government in the Government Plan

- it fails to recommend how accountability will be assured from Chief Executives of privatised or corporatised bodies

- it fails to make any mention of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act

 

Personally, I want to spend some more time going through the report in detail and considering the recommendations against my own experiences of working in the Civil Service as well as experience of the performance of UK national and local governments as well as corporatised and privatised organisations (having consulted to two of the largest of these latter bodies).

 

There are a number of aspects I agree with the principle of, such as streamlining and limited corporisation/privatisation (through the use of licences). I am simply not sure all the recommendations are the best way to achieve them. One concern I have is that in larger countries such as the UK they can achieve improvements in government through "privatisation", overseen by a single governing body specialising in that field. That works because that single body oversee a number of "privatised" firms. On the Island I can't see what they would achieve simply through "privatisation" if they then employ just as many people to ensure that firm is performing adequately.

 

I do hope it is widely discussed though. No doubt it will be a topic of much debate on the boards here.

[Galen]

By "streamling" are you suggesting stopping services that do not give value for money? Or just delayering some of the bureaucracy that exists or both?

Also reflect on what happened "across" when contracting of public services occurred under Mrs. Thatcher - many people lost jobs and the private sector made tidy profits out of getting contracts cheap and racking up the prices once they had a foot in the door and a monopolostic position. Pay rates dropped and the extent of control of contractors was also a big issue.

I agree, look at where genuine efficiences can be made, but all that glistens is not necessarily gold !

 

 

That is all well and good, but who are they going to contract out these services to? We also should be very wary of creating yet more government sponsored monopolies without some control over the service levels/performance/profitability.

 

Having said that, I think streamlining government is a good idea, in principle.

[manxman8180]

Having read the report 'fairly' thoroughly, I am well and truly 'on the fence' about both it's content and potential merit.

 

Of the 48 recommendations, I would say that at least 10 are no brainers, meaning that basically everybody knows that these particular things need doing. Someone just need to get on and do it.

 

There are a further 12-15 which would make for really good debate, in both the coming election campaigns and the next few years of the 'new' Government.

 

For me, the rest of the recommendations will never see the light of day. In fact, as it is only a report, which has been requested by a Government which will have many different faces come the end of November, you could argue that the whole thing is a white elephant. The CM has already clearly stated that it will be for the new incumbents to decide on how they implement any of the choices.

 

To the untrained eye, the idea of corporitasion (or operating under a license) may sound like a wonderful idea. But privatisation, which is basically what they are talking about, is not alwasy the best answer. Certainly not when you are dealing with an economy the size of ours.

 

And also be careful not to over egg the term 'Value for Money'. We all seek to crave this from Government, and yet there are services which must be operated by central or local Government, precisely becasue they don't represent 'Value for Money' in real economic terms.

 

Sometimes Govt has to provide a service, whether loss making or otherwise.

[Gladys]

By "streamling" are you suggesting stopping services that do not give value for money? Or just delayering some of the bureaucracy that exists or both?

Also reflect on what happened "across" when contracting of public services occurred under Mrs. Thatcher - many people lost jobs and the private sector made tidy profits out of getting contracts cheap and racking up the prices once they had a foot in the door and a monopolostic position. Pay rates dropped and the extent of control of contractors was also a big issue.

I agree, look at where genuine efficiences can be made, but all that glistens is not necessarily gold !

 

 

That is all well and good, but who are they going to contract out these services to? We also should be very wary of creating yet more government sponsored monopolies without some control over the service levels/performance/profitability.

 

Having said that, I think streamlining government is a good idea, in principle.

Galen

 

I am an avid anti-Thatcherite; IMHO that women did more lasting damage to the UK/GB economy, social infrastructure and social consciousness than can ever be put right. Hence my first comment about being wary of effectively giving contractors a licence to print money.

 

As for streamlining, it is a de-layering that I would prefer. You have to acknowledge Government is not in the 'business' of making a profit but of providing needed services to the public; its aim should, therefore, be to minimise loss and at the very best, breakeven in the services it offers, i.e. hit budget (overall, however, contributing to reserves).

 

Viewing what Government does on a purely profit and loss basis ignores just what Governrment is for and why we pay taxes!

[Tuna Sandwich]

I am an avid anti-Thatcherite; IMHO that women did more lasting damage to the UK/GB economy, social infrastructure and social consciousness than can ever be put right. Hence my first comment about being wary of effectively giving contractors a licence to print money.

 

Your comments about the damage Maggie did I find interesting because basically she took a country that was on it's knees and turned it into a major player again in just 5 years. Many people got hurt along the way but the damage was far less than the time bomb current UK administration is racking up.

 

The problem is this time when the Uk is on it's knees there is nobody capable of picking up the pieces.

 

edited for missed word.

[Juan Kerr]

As for streamlining, it is a de-layering that I would prefer. You have to acknowledge Government is not in the 'business' of making a profit but of providing needed services to the public; its aim should, therefore, be to minimise loss and at the very best, breakeven in the services it offers, i.e. hit budget (overall, however, contributing to reserves).

 

I would agree. Government is not there to make a profit. Nor should it be. But you have to say that as a report its a pretty good basis for moving forward. Although because of that you can guess that nothing will probably happen resulting from it.

 

As for David Cretney's comments - one has to question just what the DTL do with the budget they get. We would still get 80% of our tourists whether they were there or not (the fact that the DTL didn't exist would not stop airlines, ferry companies, and hotels advertising for business off Island) so you cannot directly equate expenses with money spend in shops and hotels.

[Roger Smelly]

Have to agree there juan, the DTL is a waste of money.

 

I think most people just want to see a better service from the government.

 

Spending on things that don't give value for money is pure madness, its like pouring money down the drain.

 

If we take on some of the finding its better than just tossing it in the bin as another expensive waste of money.

 

What this report does is it highlights the areas that need change, i personally think the D.O.T needs reform, more training for the workers on "how to make the perfect road" for a start .

 

I think the only ones to shout loud about this will be the ones that will lose power and profit.

[Gladys]

 

I am an avid anti-Thatcherite; IMHO that women did more lasting damage to the UK/GB economy, social infrastructure and social consciousness than can ever be put right. Hence my first comment about being wary of effectively giving contractors a licence to print money.

 

Your comments about the damage Maggie did I find interesting because basically she took a country that was on it's knees and turned it into a major player again in just 5 years. Many people got hurt along the way but the damage was far less than the time bomb current UK administration is racking up.

 

The problem is this time when the Uk is on it's knees there is nobody capable of picking up the pieces.

 

edited for missed word.

And she left it on its knees after turning off the longer term supply of home grown fossil fuels in favour of the shorter term, as we now find, NS gas; fostering home ownership rather than homes for all to the extent that there has been no significant social housing provision for almost 20 years and introducing commercial expedients to social services (in its widest sense)! Her term was over but for a few scrap metals dealers landing in the Falklands, much like a few WMD purveyors hiding out in Iran, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Korea, but her legacy lives on!

[Moghrey Mie]

I think the report is well-structured and quite readable.

 

A review of the scope and structure of government was certainly needed because there are some really strange things at present-like the Department of TRANSPORT being responsible for animal waste but not running the buses.

 

Whether some of the recommendations are implemented depends on whether the in-coming government has the ability and the nerve to reorganise local government.

[Galen]

The foregoing comments are interesting but one has to ask how independent the report is.

In truth the Committee is hardly independent - Chairman, a retired former Clerk of Tynwald, a former CM (now retired), a retired and former Chief Secretary of the Civil Service, a retired politician, a present board member of one of the QUANGOs (Water Authority). The only independent member appears to be Mrs. Clayton (I say independent as it is not clear whether she has done work for IOM Govt). Clearly there needs to be some understanding as to what happens with Govt but one has to wonder if this more than just a dose of "unfinished work"? Many of the issues the report raises have not appeared overnight, why were they not addressed when some of these individuals held office?

[Utah 01]

I have often, in these forums, expressed my opinions on the profligacy and (financial) unaccountablity of our Government. I'm pleased to see that somebody else agrees that the apple cart needs upsetting and that reforms are necessary.