Falklands : FIRS GOES ONE TO ONE WITH THE HON MIKE SUMMERS MLA
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 27.08.2011 (Article Archived on 10.09.2011)
At the end of June Mike Summers was elected on to the Legislative Assembly. Today Stacey Bragger spoke to the Hon Mr Summers (MS) about how he finds returning to Legislative Assembly and discussed the portfolio responsibilities he has taken on. Stacey Bragger first asked Mr Summers MLA how he would describe the last few weeks.
FIRS GOES ONE TO ONE WITH THE HON MIKE SUMMERS MLA
A Report for FIRS by Stacey Bragger (SB) 08/23/11
Intro by J. Brock (FINN)
At the end of June Mike Summers was elected on to the Legislative Assembly. Today Stacey Bragger spoke to the Hon Mr Summers (MS) about how he finds returning to Legislative Assembly and discussed the portfolio responsibilities he has taken on. Stacey Bragger first asked Mr Summers MLA how he would describe the last few weeks.
MS: It’s been interesting. Obviously I had a bit of catching up to do. Interestingly enough not too many things have changed radically. Obviously some things evolved more quickly than others but the structure and shape of Government and the basis of Government is still very much the same. So it hasn’t been too difficult to catch up again.
SB: How do you find taking on the portfolio responsibilities that you have inherited?
MS: Agriculture is very easy to take on as a department that’s well established, it’s fully staffed and they will gave a couple of changes in the near future but they have their business plan in place. It’s been in place for a number of years and they are working to that. They have a reasonably clear understanding with the members of the agricultural community, farmers in particular, about the services they are providing. There were discussions about how they could be different whether they should be varied in emphasis or in style and we will deal with those issues as we go along. But Agriculture is fortunately in a happy place at the moment, with decent wool prices and decent meat prices and it’s been interesting to see the continuance of interest from farms in supplying FIMCO.
I think it took a lot of courage and a lot of vision all those years ago to set up FIMCO and to support it through difficult times. It’s a lot easier to support now when it doesn’t require a subsidy but it’s interesting to see farmers responding to that opportunity. It’s great to see the numbers now being able to provide meat to the Abattoir and earn extra money for their farms.
SB: I think also you have taken on the rural Development Strategy?
MS: Yes. That’s slightly more problematic to the extent that I have been asking for the definitive Rural Development Strategy and it turns out it doesn't exist. The Rural Development Strategy hasn’t been put to Executive Council and therefore there isn’t a formal rural development strategy and we find ourselves in a slightly odd position of trying to deliver something which isn’t actually a Government strategy. So I think we have to fix that. And I think also there’s a mismatch between the objectives that are set out in the Rural Development Strategy and what we have seen so far by way of action plans because rural development strategy quite rightly, I guess, some lofty objectives and ideals about repopulating the Camp, creating more work Camp and getting much more economic activity in the Camp. The action plan, such as it is at the moment, simply doesn’t address those issues. So we have to pull those two things together and I will be asking for some more work to be done on that, either to readjust the objectives or to readjust the action plan.
SB: is it clear where the RDS fits in with the EDS and the islands’ Plan?
MS: Yes. I don’t think there’s a difficulty there particularly in the overall objectives for the economy as set in the Economic Development Strategy (EDS) and the Islands’ Plan reflects in its sections most of those or perhaps all of those objectives. I don’t think there’s a problem about where it fits. What matters is that we are not simply creating a set of lofty ideals that we are not then prepared to deliver. And if we are not prepared to set up Rural Economic Zones, which is a big feature of the Rural Development Strategy, or if we are not prepared to build new houses or invest in other ways in infrastructure in Camp then we are not going to achieve those ideals. So the Action Plan at the end of the day is more important than the objectives because they are, after all, just guiding principles. But at the end of the day you have to have an action plan that will deliver those things.
SB: The import substitutions project was raised last week in the Public Meetings you said were going to be discussed at EXCO next week.
MS: The terms of that I can’t remember if they would be discussed at EXCO or at FIDB – possibly at both. But yes, the terms of that will be set out. There have been a lot of changes in the original thinking of the import substitution programme. It is effectively about food security.. it is effectively about being able to grow enough of your own produce here that you don’t have to rely as heavily as we currently do on imports. And that’s a valid objective. There will be a programme available for people to make investments in growing vegetables particularly but also in producing more eggs so we don’t have to import those things from outside. And as long as it can be done commercially then that’s fine. I did mention it at the public meeting on the West. There is a creative tension between that project and the announcement about the shipping link. Of course, when you do have a regular and effective shipping link you will get a better supply of fruit and vegetables and those sorts of things at highly competitive world prices. So whether that will undermine the Import Substitution Programme or not – I think we will have to see. We will make it available and see who applies and whether they think there are commercially viable projects can be funded from it. That’s what the paper says. They need to be commercially viable projects and to achieve that the prices have to be high enough to cover the cost of production.
SB: Beckside Farm was raised last week and I think there has been speculation that there was the possibility of setting up a market garden or something there. Would that undermine people’s doing things off their own back?
MS: No. Beckside Farm has become something of a distraction in this project and I think that’s unfortunate. The original idea as conceived by Glenn Ross and one or two others was food security, that we need to make sure we are producing enough of our own food stuffs here not to have to rely too heavily on imports and everyone’s going to rely on imports but for fresh vegetables and fresh eggs we should be able to produce them here. Beckside Farm is a side issue. It’s a facility that FIDC owns and would like to be shod of. It’s a facility that does have an egg production unit and certainly would be available to somebody who wants to lease it. And I think the land on Beckside Farm – if somebody wants to lease bits of it or all of it from FIDC could be used in the import substitution programme if somebody wants to set something up there. But we don’t want to confuse the two issues. The money that’s available in the Import Substitution programme is to set up projects that produce. It is not to reinvest in Beckside Farm and find a way of simply disposing of Beckside Farm. So if somebody wants to use it, that’s all well and good and they can lease pieces of land off of FIDC. What I have to say from a non-expert prospective – if I was going to set up a horticultural facility, that’s not the piece of land that I would choose. But that’s up to somebody else.
SB: You mentioned that seemingly not much had changed from the previous time you were on Council. Was that surprising considering the clean sweep that happened at the previous election?
MS: No not really. I think I’d have been more surprised if there were a lot of different things and different ways of doing things. There are pros and cons, I suppose to clean sweeps and one of them is you get a whole bunch of people who are unfamiliar with what’s been going on in Government for a long time and don’t find it that easy to change existing systems. Perhaps that’s been the order of the day. And there was a very substantial programme of work already planned from the last council that this one has taken up and we begin to see some of that feeding through.
There are one or two new things but not too many so it wasn’t overly difficult to fit back into that structure. Actually its right there should be structure to Government that continues. We don’t want to be chopping and changing it all the time.
The one thing that I have found a little bit to cope with is the portfolio system, which is currently in place that I find confusing and somewhat illogical. But I will carry on talking to folks about that and see if we can tidy it up a bit. Otherwise it is much as normal.
SB: Has there been any discussion whilst you have been back on Council about the review of the review?
MS: No. Not that I have been involved in other than the person who is going to do the review has been out for discussion and I believe there are a couple of candidates. I don’t know where we are with appointing one of those. My understanding is the review of the Government structure will take place towards the back end of this year. I would simply say what I have said all along about this issue and it is that there has to be some kind of structure for the Government. If people generally or the people in authority don’t like the structure we have, then propose another one. I haven’t heard anybody suggest we should go back to what we had, nor have I heard anybody say they know of a better structure than this one. But if they do, then let us know. Let’s not forget that the key issues in the review of Government were not necessarily the structure, which is what got all the comment and got people exercised – it was about training and bringing people through the system and bringing local people up into the senior levels of management. This Government – this Council has taken hold of that very strongly and said we must do that. And they have put a lot of extra money into doing that. That is absolutely right and proper. And that is what the review foresaw that it was necessary to do that, so all those things are not new either. They came out of the review that appeared to be so unpopular. But I think it’s only that second level – second tier if you like – of directors who seem to rail against but what nobody has said to my hearing is what they have in mind instead of it.
SB: I think also a big part of how it was sold was to make savings for Government on a premise that doesn’t seem to have happened.
MS: I haven’t seen any recent costings but what has happened since the review was first agreed, is that one or two posts were reinstated, so the costs that were supposed to be saved have probably been eaten up by those posts – one in the secretariat and one in education. And you can’t have a review which is designed to reduce costs and start adding bits back and then say it didn’t save any money. It’s obvious it isn’t going to save any money if you keep adding things back.
SB: And how would you describe the rest of the Council since you’ve been back?
MS: I know most of them very well. I have worked with several of them in the past and those that I haven’t worked with before, I know as individuals. As I said some while ago, I’m perfectly happy to be a team player and I can get on with almost anybody. Not that they can get on with me but that’s a different issue, isn’t it? We are there – we have a job of work to do – we are the Government and keeping Elected Members at the forefront of running the Falkland Islands’ Government is an important issue and one that I will keep stressing to colleagues that we are the Government. We are not the opposition of the Administration – we are not a counterpart to the Foreign office or the Government or anyone else. We are the Government of the Falkland Islands. And that’s the way we should be thinking about ourselves and the way we would like to community to be thinking about us. And we should be taking responsibilities for the decisions that the Government makes. It shouldn’t be that ‘they have done this and they have done that’ but “we” have done this and “we have done that.” And that’s how it should be, in my view.
(100X Transcription Service)
|
