By Robert Surcouf
FOLLOWING the local news lately, we still seem to be suffering from short-term decisions taken without considering the long-term implications. In the past I have written about the long-term costs of not undertaking maintenance, which too often on government-owned buildings seems to be delayed so as to create an illusion of cost savings, when in reality this is just storing up a bigger bill further down the line.
The fact that Highlands, a facility intended to provide many of our young people with the life skills to enter full-time employment and enhance their careers, has been left to get in such a poor state that there is an emergency requirement of £1,000,000 of maintenance should be of concern. In reality, consideration should have been given to building a new educational facility within the next stage of the Waterfront development so that it would be close to the bus station and offices and release much of the existing site either for a replacement primary school or family housing. We seem to have lacked for several governments a long-term masterplan for public facilities and everything seems to be considered in isolation leading to ineffective decisions or just a large amount of kicking of cans.
This most recent maintenance blackhole, to my mind, can only have occurred as a result of poor overall management, primarily due to penny pinching in all the wrong places. Sadly, too often we’re seeing these long-term costs due to short-term savings and our politicians and the civil servants who deliver the policies that they set really do need to start focusing on a long-term plan and not to cut corners. The Opera House, Fort Regent, the list goes on and on. We need long-term thinking and meaningful maintenance plans that are not dropped for short-term expediency, often driven by meeting short-term key performance indicators, if they are even properly set. Hopefully the Comptroller and Auditor General will cover this further when assessing the value for money on the spending of our money.
When considering long-term decisions, then the granting of a 15-year licence does require long-term considerations to be addressed. The ferry tender process is vital to the Island’s economy and connectivity and it would be all too easy for a short-term view to be taken in order to temporarily resolve the issue by ignoring longer term requirements. Deputy Morel has rightly not taken this easy route and has focused on the long-term viability and the need for any operator to have a financial position they will allow it to operate and enhance its fleet throughout the contract period. It is very unfortunate that there have been differences in the approach between the two islands and also that the actions of a senior civil servant have complicated the process.
The principles of taking a long-term view must be a key area of focus in the final decision but will they then be properly applied? Looking at service-level issues over the last few years it is very unclear if the licence provided sufficient KPI and checks and balances, especially when the operator fell under the ownership of a private equity investment fund. Many will tell you that these often become a byword for profit over service but sadly, in reality, this can often lead to a loss of clients and actually not generate the anticipated returns, in turn impacting future investment and service.
We are informed that there will be a decision in early December and, once the dust is settled, there must be a meaningful review of not only the tender process but how KPIs are set and managed. We must examine the lessons learnt to better guide such processes in future, especially if some of those may involve both islands in creating efficiencies by greater cooperation. We could not have delays like this when dealing with the hospital and other major capital and commercial projects as in reality too many businesses will be put off competing for contracts, which I understand is already an issue within certain sectors.
When considering long-term plans another recent decision that has concerned me is around the redevelopment of the Elizabeth Terminal. I was expecting an exciting development to enhance activity and associated facilities but, in reality, it feels like a short-term reshuffling of the facilities at quite a great cost. I would love to know if any consideration was given to creating a deep-water harbour further out past the existing reclamation? This would allow cruise ships to berth and also accommodate larger freight and passenger ferries, taking account of some of the challenges that the existing harbour presents in terms of size of vessels and the draft and times of access. To me this would seem a more sensible long-term consideration compared to building a bridge or a tunnel or a new terminal building with no material change to how it can operate. It would have allowed the new commercial harbour facilities to be focused to the south of La Colette and allow the existing harbour to be redeveloped for housing, tourism and entertainment on the land made available and in the water allowed for larger pleasure crafts and extension of 24-hour access marina berths.
Hopefully someone will sit down and develop a long-term plan covering the island’s infrastructure as we seem to have failed to either consider or make decisions for far too long and everything is costing more taxpayers money for less and less.
-
Robert Surcouf comes from a Jersey farming family, though his mother was Spanish and moved to Jersey in the 1960s. He became an accountant and now specialises in risk and enterprise management. A father of two school-age children, he still helps organise and participates in local motorsport events and was one of the founding members of Better Way 2022 before the last election. The views expressed are his own.
