Falklands : Public Meeting Report (05/06/09) Part 2
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 12.05.2009 (Article Archived on 26.05.2009)
We continue with the Island Plan Public Meeting.
PUBLIC MEETING REPORT (05/06/09)
Part 2:
Commentary and transcript by J. Brock for 100X Transcription Service
MS: What would be helpful before we go into items of detail on specific sections is to just draw your attention to the second page and the second page and the nine key areas in which we focused on this plan (1) the right to self determination, (2) sustainable economic and fiscal management, (3) education, (4) transport and communications, (5) Health, (6) good governance, (7) Camp, (8) environment and (9) quality of life and community safety and just to see whether anybody has any comments they wanted to make at that higher level as to whether you think there are issues that ought to be in an islands plan that are not covered here or whether you think this is about right. Does anybody have any comments at that level before we go into this section by section?
Tim Blake (TB): I find it interesting to note that there is no provision for the promotion of the heritage of the Falkland Islands. Presumably it’s been written off for another five years before we can think about it again?
MS: Not at all. It’s not, as I think Tim was saying, in any case a five-year plan that you start and then look at it after five years. It will be updated on an annual basis. And, one of my colleagues here will tell me now where the heritage bit appears.
JB: Well, yes, if you look on that page there under the environment, Section 8 –
TB: Well, I looked at that page and I looked at the page which deals with the environment and it talks about shipping and transport and that’s about as far as it goes.
JB: Of course that’s what this meeting is about. Thank-you, Tim, for picking up on that.
MS: OK, so that’s an issue that we ought to pick up on and put something in for heritage in that section.
Lewis Clifton (LC): May I just raise a question in terms of the 4th paragraph of the 1st page which is “The Islands Plan is supported by a parallel five-year term medium financial plan.” Is there an annex to this that we haven’t been copied?
MS: There isn’t an annex to this but there is an MTFP (Medium Term Financial Plan) that’s been published separately.
LC: Is that the Executive Council Paper for February this year?
AC: Yes. It is the amended MTFP.
MS: Yes
AC: It is the amended MTFP. And, if you look in here under section – wait a minute -
MS: Section 2.
AC: Section 2 - 3.3 – the detail that’s within that EXCO paper is in here under the target as was approved at that meeting. So that paper, if you like, would be an addendum to this.
LC: OK then my supplementary to that is then given that we seem to have this rolling deficit now and the potential of having perhaps a slightly bigger one by the end of June or certainly by the time you consider the budget in light of the Illex, would as that factor in terms of that planning for this – I have always felt that the Islands Plan – the foundation stone on which the Island Plan is built, has lacked the fiscal appreciation to run with it, so that’s really why I am flagging paragraph 4 now. Where does all this fit in terms of rolling out the fiscal plan?
MS: If you look at page (Paragraph) 4 – Lewis – 3.3 which says “Achieve the aims of the Medium Term Financial Plan,” that sets out the headlines that were agreed in EXCO – the revised MTFP of a deficit of £2 Million in 9/10 reducing to £1 Million and a balanced budget in 10/11 and then going back into surplus.
AC: Is your concern that we are not going to stick to that – is that you are saying?
LC: I think the evidence or the public’s opinion is that perhaps the Medium Term Financial Plan is not going to deliver in the first instance. 2008/2009 is not in here, of course in terms of deficit this year to roll it forward is actually greater than the deficit of last year.
AC: No.
MS: We won’t be rolling forward any deficits from 8/9 but it remains –
LC: No. It’s the base line of last year and it’s coming forward to 2009/10. I just wonder where the deficit is now to roll out this plan, that’s all.
MS: The plan – I mean, where we’ve got to in the budgeting process and the planning for 9/10 remains in accordance with this, that we intend to set a budget later this month with a deficit of no more that £2 Million. It remains the plan. Is there anything more on that sort of broad level –
Mike Forrest (MF): Tim touched on this but I would just like a bit of clarification. In previous copies of the plan a responsibility is made with officers. I noticed where the responsibility doesn’t appear here now and there is the introduction of Portfolio Members. Who will the responsibility actually lay? Is it going to lay with Portfolio Members and will they be reporting on their responsibilities at the appropriate time?
MS: I think we are easy about that but essentially the delivery of objectives in the Islands Plan is a joint responsibility between the Public Service and the Member responsible, also of the Government as a whole. The way that the Government system works here – any individual Member can deliver what they are required to deliver from a plan if the Government provides the resources that were foreseen at the time. I think the answer to your question, both are equally responsible but they are responsible in different ways – one from a democratic prospective and the other from a Government Performance perspective.
AC: But to add to that, there’s also in one of the examples that the Chief Executive used there also being a role for the wider public to play and it won’t be even just as simple as those two people – the portfolio holder and the Government Officer. It might well be that other individuals within the community will be, which is why it is important that everybody is onboard with the plan as it is because there will be a wider role as well – and responsibility.
MS: We had quite long discussions at various times about whether you can allocate a responsibility to somebody in Government for something that is an aspiration of the community or different parts of the private sector to achieve. Some people think we should and some think we shouldn’t. On balance we think that’s an appropriate thing to do given that it’s a document that belongs to the Government overall and whilst it may not be as Tim was saying, our direct responsibility to reduce the micron size, for instance, wool. It does form part of the Agricultural Plan and therefore, if you are going to have an agricultural plan proposed as that as a delivery point, you should take responsibility for it. Are there other elements further into the Plan that – more details that people would like to pick up on this in any of the sections?
Let’s look at Section 1 first, then, which is the Right to Self Determination and deals with a number of issues that surround that. Does anybody have any points they want to pick up on in this area? This is an area, actually, where measurement is quite difficult and again, we’ve had quite long discussions about how you can measure some of these aspirations because some of them are simply on-going commitments.
Jane Cameron (JC): I am quite interested in this course indicator referring to Falkland Islands’ students to undertake a formal assessment of their National Identity.. What is that formal assessment envisaged as consisting of?
RS: Well, it’s all part of a PHSE course that they will do. And, then I presume that at some appropriate time they will be tested on their knowledge so that they will know the important points of those issues.
JR: To a certain extent it formalises something what happens already on a yearly basis. Mike usually will go up and talk to the Year 11s about Self Determination and various issues. It’s awareness of political identity and all that kind of thing. Now the PHSE Programme that they do, which is the Personal Health and Social Education Programme – well, a couple of teachers have put quite a lot of work in re-vamping that whole programme and it covers a broad range of issues – not just political but in terms of social and cultural issues and health and personal health and all that kind of thing. This will form part of it. It’s just to try and have a more formalised approach to ensuring at least when students are leaving, they understand what the political identity and culture is like here – what sort of Government do we have and that kind of thing.
JC: So having local history is part of the curriculum and it fits into that?
MS: Yes it does
JR: Yes. Absolutely, yes.
MS: Understanding of the Constitutional position and understanding the concept of self determination is an important element of that.
TB: Isn’t anybody providing instruction in this sort of thing at present?
RS: They are developing this PHSE course at the moment. In fact, there are two members of staff that are building this programme at the moment.
MS: Different parts of it are delivered by different people in different parts of the course.
TB: I thought it was to do with living in the Falkland Islands in the Falkland Islands community. Probably the majority of the people who do the instructing will be here on a two-year contract.
RS: No
JR: Well, no. We have a Policeman, for example, going and talking to them about social issues, about, for example, issues on road safety is one of the things we thought was important last year following accidents and so on. You will have people from the Health Department going and talking to them about different social issues. So, it’s not a programme that’s delivered by any single individual or any single teacher even. It’s depending on.
TB: But it’s ad-hoc.
JR: No. It’s not ad-hoc. It’s a programme but it’s being delivered by
RS: But it’s being co-ordinated by two members of staff and one, for the record, is a local and the other is someone that’s been in the community for 40 years. So, hopefully they will be qualified.
Tim Miller (TM) I see you’ve got down the 211/12 – I guess is what I take is a proposed UN visit coming here. I am just wondering why it’s left until then and not brought forward a bit earlier, bearing in mind that not all the other ones you’ve got down are basically people who tend to be on our side, so to speak, anyway, whereas the UN itself – or the UN Committee so to speak, is the grey area.
MS: It’s a subject on which we’ve had many discussions over many, many years and there are pros and cons to bringing delegations from the UN because you can’t choose who is going to be in it. And, it’s something that needs quite a lot of careful planning. And, it shouldn’t actually be in here because this line is to do with the CPA. But a UN visit, I think this must have got somehow dislocated from the C-24 issue. But a UN visit is something that we sort of keep in vision, if you like, as something to use at an appropriate time. And, it does take quite a lot of thinking about.
(100X Transcription Service)
|
