A SCRUTINY panel has asked the government to explain why four recommendations made to improve the management of the ‘substantial’ publicly owned property portfolio have been rejected.
The Public Accounts Committee has published comments on the executive response to its damning report, which was released in October, and said that further clarification was needed on how and when the remainder of the recommendations will be implemented.
The government accepted most of the recommendations made in the report, which said its ‘substantial’ property portfolio was being mismanaged, with some ‘prominent and culturally significant properties’ in the public estate having lain empty for years.
It accepted 17, partially accepted seven, but rejected four recommendations from the PAC, which said it was ‘disappointed’ in the outcome.
The rejected recommendations were: a request for an ‘urgent assessment’ of the human and financial resources needed to deliver the implementation of its estate strategy, clarifying the role of the Arms-Length Organisations Oversight Board in the public estate strategy, that ALBOB should undertake a review of States-owned buildings and that the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department should undertake a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the Concerto software programme system.
PAC chairperson Deputy Inna Gardiner has previously said the government need to act ‘without further delay’ over its £1 billion property portfolio.
Now, her panel has asked for a named officer or department to be made responsible to implement its recommendations, ‘to ensure accountability’.
These accepted recommendations include that there should be a review of the purpose and aims of the Jersey Development Company, and that filling vacancies in the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment Department and Jersey Property Holdings needed to be given ‘top priority’.
