THE verdict of the States spending watchdog on the Social Security Department’s ailing IT benefits integration system as not being on time, on budget or even complete is probably the strongest condemnation of any government overspend in the post-war period.
Some sense of the anger felt by the Public Accounts Committee, shared by Treasury and Resources, that this could go on over years without States members being aware or having approved the expenditure is contained in PAC’s belief that SSD should be stripped of its powers to embark on capital projects without approval.
Equally, Social Security believes it has been dealt with too harshly and can claim, with some justification, that a massively complex operation has been achieved by its staff’s dedication and is working well.
The public climate, however, is against overspends and for politicians not even to be aware of such problems does not play well with islanders, especially just before an election. As Treasury and Resources notes, it inevitably damages public confidence in the ability of departments to deliver projects on time and on budget.
It also raises, as we said yesterday, the issue of accountability. Much as islanders dislike their money being overspent, worse still is the prospect of the guilty parties, as they see it, getting away with it.
While it was not then Home Secretary John Reid’s fault that his immigration service was not fit for purpose, as minister he paid the price.
Should SSD’s minister resign over this? As, arguably, the damage was already done when she took over, that, too, might also seem too harsh. However, new brooms usually favour clearing out any skeletons and then moving on. That opportunity was not taken, a political judgement missed, and the late notice of this now looks like a cover-up that reflects poorly on government as a whole.
The lesson from this, as PAC highlighted, is that lessons have not been learned from past overspends and that simply cannot be ignored.
This article posted on February 23, 2008 at 9:00 am, filed under Comment, News.
New broom missed out
THE verdict of the States spending watchdog on the Social Security Department’s ailing IT benefits integration system as not being on time, on budget or even complete is probably the strongest condemnation of any government overspend in the post-war period.
Some sense of the anger felt by the Public Accounts Committee, shared by Treasury and Resources, that this could go on over years without States members being aware or having approved the expenditure is contained in PAC’s belief that SSD should be stripped of its powers to embark on capital projects without approval.
Equally, Social Security believes it has been dealt with too harshly and can claim, with some justification, that a massively complex operation has been achieved by its staff’s dedication and is working well.
The public climate, however, is against overspends and for politicians not even to be aware of such problems does not play well with islanders, especially just before an election. As Treasury and Resources notes, it inevitably damages public confidence in the ability of departments to deliver projects on time and on budget.
It also raises, as we said yesterday, the issue of accountability. Much as islanders dislike their money being overspent, worse still is the prospect of the guilty parties, as they see it, getting away with it.
While it was not then Home Secretary John Reid’s fault that his immigration service was not fit for purpose, as minister he paid the price.
Should SSD’s minister resign over this? As, arguably, the damage was already done when she took over, that, too, might also seem too harsh. However, new brooms usually favour clearing out any skeletons and then moving on. That opportunity was not taken, a political judgement missed, and the late notice of this now looks like a cover-up that reflects poorly on government as a whole.
The lesson from this, as PAC highlighted, is that lessons have not been learned from past overspends and that simply cannot be ignored.
Share this article:
What are these?