I made the following speech regarding T&R’s proposals for the SCIP at the July 2014 meeting.
Sir, 3 weeks ago we were asked to make a binary choice between executive and committee government and told that the Policy & Resources Committee would just be a co-ordinating Committee, with the States always having the final say. Well, I would like to know just how that fits in with the proposals before us today and the additional powers and resources that we are effectively being asked to provide to the Centre.
Just to be clear, I am not commenting on the merits or otherwise of the new model, but I do think Members need to be mindful of the fact that this trend towards delegation of authority and decisions being taken away from this Assembly emphasises the need for a more powerful, better resourced Scrutiny function.
Now, from a PAC perspective, this report is broadly welcomed. The concept of a portfolio approach propounded here is sound and is a method widely adopted across many organisations, be they in the public or private sector. In particular, we welcome the understanding of the need to identify and ensure the delivery of project benefits. Further controls of the capital programme – which will see significant public monies being invested – can only be supported by the PAC as we strive for embedding ‘Value for Money’.
However, there is concern that the cost of doing this appears high. 0.4% may sound small, but when it is a 0.4% of £275m that’s a fair amount – £1.1m to be precise. And that assumes that Category D projects are not included, if they are that would be an extra £400k. It isn’t clear from the report whether that is the case.
These concerns prompted my email to the T&R Minister and again I thank his department for the detailed response. We wanted to know what work was included for this considerable sum.
And what work is included for this? Well, it is quite difficult to see from the report what more is going to be done than is done at the moment. It would appear to us that we will only be getting monitoring reports on the portfolio and general advice on process and business case development. Project management isn’t included as this will be embedded in individual project costs. So, the key question is whether the benefits are worth the £1m extra in staff costs we are being asked to approve today.
A major point is made about the potential savings arising from increased procurement input but that appears to be hard to justify. Can we seriously be expected to have in-house expertise on every type of project? I refer Members to Table 1 on page 1573, which lists current pipeline projects. Look at the diversity of projects listsed – replacement radiology equipment, wastewater outfall and SCFH roof. Does it make sense to build up in-house expertise on everything?
SPS – not even mentioned in this report – what are they doing, will they be involved in the future?
The report indicates that in-house expertise could be used to challenge conclusions put forward by those working on the larger capital projects and contracted externally for their domain knowledge. I would question whether he benefits of such an approach would outweigh the costs of the extra staff required.
Awaiting response from T&R re email – will determine next part of speech. However, we know that they haven’t worked out precisely what they need yet – so;
It is evident from the reply I received from T&R that the Department has yet to decide precisely what resources it needs. I find that deeply ironic that the Department to whom all other departments are having to report and produce strategic cases, outline cases and full cases, is the very department that has put little in the way of a case for the money it wants.
Now by having more staff employed at the centre it is implied that project costs will be reduced as external resources currently used won’t be required in the future.
Paragraph 11 on page 1571 states that
“the project assurance reviews have concluded that the projects often do not have access to sufficient experienced and qualified specialist internal resource which leads to an over reliance on external advisers.”
However, given we are told that staff at the centre will not be directly involved in project management or implementation, we do wonder what these people will be doing.
There appears to be some conflict with respect to what these staff are expected to do. On the one hand we are told that they will provide specialist resource to all departments in order to help support the development of business cases, but on the other they will review business cases and will ensure appropriate scrutiny and challenge and ensure value for money.
I would argue that wouldn’t that be for a properly resourced PAC to do? After all, how can you be involved in the business case and provide appropriate scrutiny at the same time? On that front, no mention of whether Post Implementation Reviews will change or not. {Lessons learnt – all departments to see them]
So, in summary, the Committee does believe that the proposals will improve the current project management process but that we are concerned about the costs with the need for a strong independent scrutiny function to ensure we will be getting value for money in the future.