Chamber of Commerce: Charlie Parker

Charlie Parker, Chief Executive of the Government of Jersey & Head of the Public Service was speaking on the rapid and unprecedented programme of transformation.

There was a lot of talking about "challenges" and the challenge of change, but very little that gave substance to the talk. It would have been useful to have some concrete examples thrown in, to actually demonstrate how the "change programme" was working with particular classes of States employees; this could have been anonymised or pseudonymisded, but instead a lot of what we were told was more generalities than substance. 

And I've yet to see a summary of expenses which breaks down into recurring and one-off for year by year comparison, surely one way to view savings.

There was, thankfully, only one use of the word "vibrant" and I must write a memo to myself to tell Kevin Keen that I shall be watching sharply to see how many times he says it next month in his talk. 

However, I found there to be rather too much use of the words "change" and "challenge", which made me feel at times as if this was a left-over script from "Yes Minister".

Kennedy: How will you extinguish local government bureaucracy?
Hacker: It's a challenge I'm looking forward to.
Kennedy: Would you agree there's even more bureaucratic waste there than in Whitehall?
Hacker: Yes, that's what makes it a challenge.
Kennedy: How will you meet the challenge?
Hacker: It's far too early to give detailed proposals. The broad strategy is to cut ruthlessly at waste while leaving essential services intact.
Kennedy: That's what your predecessor said. Did he fail?
Hacker: Certainly not. On the contrary. It's just that this job is an enormous...
Kennedy: Challenge?

Hacker: Exactly!

The fact that Scrutiny are finding it difficult to determine what is going on, and exactly how the savings of this change programme can be quantified suggests that Mr Parker needs to communicate this more clearly. There was a mention of "measurable outcomes", at which my ears pricked up, but I can't recall a document which actually sets that out in detail.

Dr Cartwright, a civil servant, in "Yes Minister" spells out what you really need to see:
Dr Cartwright: Controlling council expenditure. I'm proposing that all council
officials responsible for a new project list their criteria for failure
before getting the go-ahead.
Hacker: What do you mean?
Dr Cartwright: It's a basic scientific approach. You must establish a method of measuring the success or failure of an experiment. When it's completed, you know if it's succeeded or failed. A proposer states "This scheme would fail if it lasts longer than this or costs more than that, if it employs more staff than these or fails to meet pre-set standards."

I've yet to see anything like that with any degree of clarity.

On who runs things, Mr Parker was very clear. Ministers set the policy and strategic goals, and it is for him and the civil service to implement them. Having studied politics for many years, and watched "Yes Minister" and "The Thick of It", I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. One of the reason Mr Parker was brought in was to develop a change programme, and yes that was a broad strategic aim, but the decision making process of how that is to work, and Ministers being advised on what that means, lies with Mr Parker.

Mr Parker is right about a culture change. I have come across at least one case of a "legacy" Chief Officer blocking a project until finally over-ruled by his Minister. The culture in which Chief Officers actually had virtual autonomy over their fiefdom must go. But the fiasco over drafting the Children's Commissioner Law (where Article 8 was watered down by civil servants, and the Minister for Children let it go) suggests that there is still a long way to go.

Population reared its head, as it does, with the old issue of the balance between needing skilled workers, developing skills locally (not always possible) and how to manage it. There was little of the impact on infrastructure, although I am glad to say the Ponzi scheme of growing the population to pay for the elderly was not mentioned either. But Mr Parker agreed that this was a challenge.

A quick sli-do poll was conducted during the lunch, and most people present wanted a second referendum, then leave with a deal, and finally leave with no deal had very few supporters. 

I always think that "no deal" is misleading and the options really are "leave with a deal in place" or "leave with a deal to be determined afterwards."  There seems to be a naive and widespread assumption that "no deal" is the end of the process, whereas in fact it would only be the start of a far longer and protracted process to sort out a deal. If you leave without a deal, you should have at least some idea about what kind of deal you aim to negotiate afterwards. Otherwise it won't be a case of the nightmare is over, but the nightmare begins.

I was chatting about population to an individual from a bank on my right, who had come to Jersey some 25 years ago. He thought the rot set in with income support and would like to go back to the days of Parish handouts, so that people wouldn't come here to live and get handouts which he told me they can do almost at once. Clearly he'd never bothered to check what the Income Support residence test was, and how that more or less sets a five year limit before being able to claim Income Support.

He seemed to be of the opinion that to be out of work and on income support was widespread, which must come as news to the Social Security Department, where there are many schemes to get people back to work, and be re-skilled, and penalties for those who shirk that responsibility and are able to work but choose not to. 

And he seemed not aware that income support not only replaced Parish welfare, but also a scheme of grants that was already in place with Social Security, such as rent rebate, disability allowance, etc etc.

I've even heard some people say that supporting rent (the equivalent of the rent rebate scheme) should be stopped, but that is invariably said by people who have never had income support, and never been near the breadline.

My dining companion also told me that prisoners should do something constructive and not just be imprisoned but do constructive work, and if foreign, be sent back home. It amazes me that there can be such ignorance of schemes in place for rehabilitating prisoners, that they do work - an example is growing plants for sale - and have re-skill and training programmes. And that there are legal mechanisms in place for repatriation should this seem appropriate. Why do people make comments about the prison service without doing their homework?

I suppose a lot of professionals are cocooned in their own bubbles and don't see the wider picture. Rory Stewart, who is trying for Mayor of London (and I hope he gets it), learns by listening, walking, and meeting people on the ground, not with guided political visits, but just meeting, listening, finding out what ordinary people say, or even, for that matter, those who are down and out or on the breadline. It's a refreshing change from armchair politicians. 

Coming back to Charlie Parker - Mr Parker was right to call out the somewhat venomous impact of social media and the Jersey rumour mill. But not all criticism is of him as a person, some of it is simply wanting to get answers to questions, and trying to see though a fog which seems to hide the finer detail. I'd still like to see the kind of measurable outcomes that Dr Cartwright mentions, but I suppose that is something of a challenge for Mr Parker to deliver.