T Y N W A L D C O U R T O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Q U A I Y L T I N V A A L

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

(HANSARD)

S T A N D I N G C O M M I T T E E O F T Y N W A L D O N S C R U T I N Y

B I N G V E A Y N T I N V A A L M Y C H I O N E S C R U T A G H E Y

Douglas, Thursday, 5th May 2011

All published Official Reports can be found on the website www.tynwald.org.im Official Papers/Hansards/Please select a year:

Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted upon application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

PP88/11 TS, No. 2

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, , IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2011

STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Members Present:

Chairman: Mrs B J Cannell, MHK Mr P Karran, MHK Mr E G Lowey, MLC Mr W M Malarkey, MHK

Clerk: Mr J King

Apologies: Mr R P Braidwood, MLC

BUSINESS TRANSACTED Page

Procedural ...... 23

Evidence of Mr I Thompson, Chief Executive, Department of Infrastructure, with Mrs A Craig, Strategic Planning and Governance Manager, in attendance...... 23

The Committee sat in private at 4.53 p.m.

______22 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Scrutiny

The Committee sat in public at 3.35 p.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MRS CANNELL in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mrs Cannell): Good afternoon, everybody. May I welcome you to this sitting of the Standing Committee of Tynwald on Scrutiny. I chair these meetings and I am Mrs , Member of the . My other 5 Committee Members: to my right, Mr Bill Malarkey, Member of the House of Keys; to my left, Mr Eddie Lowey, Member of the Legislative Council; and my further left, is Mr , also a Member of the House of Keys. We also have one other Member, Mr Braidwood, who has been unable to attend today. Our Clerk for the day is Mr King, who is on my far right and our Hansard reporter is Mrs Callister. 10 If I could ask everybody that if you have a mobile phone on you, if you could please put it off and not just keep it on silent because it can interfere with the electronic equipment and the recording equipment. If I can state for the record the remit of the Committee. It is to consider items of approved or rejected legislation, secondary legislation, which has been referred by Members and other items of 15 secondary legislation, as the Committee sees fit, and report to Tynwald, as and when the Committee sees fit; to examine the Annual Tynwald Policy Decisions Report and consider whether the action taken has adequately responded to Tynwald resolutions; and to consider whether any of the Tynwald resolutions which have not been fully implemented are appropriate for removal from the list; and lay an annual report before Tynwald, with recommendations for 20 action where appropriate. In this remit, ‘secondary legislation’ includes orders made by Her Majesty’s Privy Council, extending to the Isle of Man, the provisions of an Act of Parliament or of any orders, rules or regulations made thereunder. Currently, we are here today to take evidence from the Chief Executive and also his assistant, 25 who I welcome, Mrs Amanda Craig. Mr Ian Thompson is the Chief Executive of the new Department of Infrastructure and all of this, what we are focusing on at the moment, is following on from the Scope and Structure of Government Report, which was then looked at by the Chief Minister and a committee of Ministers, which came forward just over a year ago, with the restructuring of Government. We have taken evidence from all Government Departments, but we 30 have invited Mr Thompson, in particular, today, and we are very pleased that he has agreed to attend because that particular Department seems to have expanded quite significantly and perhaps could be viewed as the largest, if not one of the largest, of Government Departments under the new structuring regime.

EVIDENCE OF MR I THOMPSON with Mrs A Craig in attendance

Q85. The Chairman: First of all, I welcome you both and I would just like to invite Mr 35 Thompson, if he wishes, to make a statement at this stage.

Mr Thompson: I think, first of all, thank you for inviting us along and we are pleased to be here.

______23 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

I would like to just add a bit to your comments, Chairman. The first one was, perhaps, no, we 40 are not the largest Department, but we may be the most varied now, inasmuch as Health and Education are clearly bigger than us in numerical terms, but in terms of diversity, probably right, we may even be the most varied and largest. From the old DoT, particularly, perhaps for the record and for members of the public present, the difference between the DoT that everybody knew in the past and where we are today is whilst, 45 under the Transfer of Functions Order, we lost the Drainage Division to the new Water and Sewerage Authority, we have taken on board the Health and Safety Inspectorate, the Planning and Building Control Division, Waste Management, the Local Government Unit, the properties element of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and also their architect and engineering function. We have taken on, from what was the Department of Trade and Industry, 50 responsibility for the overview of the Manx Electricity Authority and for the Water and Sewerage Authority. Shortly we will take on board responsibility for properties from Home Affairs, DCCL and Economic Development and, ultimately, we will also be taking on board the Department of Health estates and those from Education. That is a factual statement of what has happened to us since 1st April last year. 55 Q86. The Chairman: Okay. The list that you have just given us, does that include every variation within the Department? I was just wondering if, perhaps, you could list all of the different variations?

60 Mr Thompson: I am not quite sure –

The Chairman: Well, first of all you got… These are additional responsibilities –

Mr Thompson: Those that we did originally, yes. 65 The Chairman: But the original responsibilities, as well: it would be useful for us to have a whole list of all the responsibilities. Yes.

Mr Thompson: Yes, of course, sorry. Sorry for not following you. 70 We still have Highways Division. We have our own Properties Division. We have Operations, which is, of course, quite varied: it has building works; it has civil engineering works; it covers divers; it covers central plant, vehicles. We have got, apart from our own internal management function, in terms of our own internal Health and Safety, the Airport, which is a Division in its own right, Harbours and I think that is about it. It is probably enough, isn’t it? 75 Mr Malarkey: No taxis!

Q87. The Chairman: Okay, when you say your own Division of properties that fell under the former Department of Transport, does that still also include animal waste matters? 80 Mr Thompson: That was one of the new areas from Local Government that we picked up, which was Waste, yes. That has now merged into what was the part of the former DoLGE that used to do the Energy from Waste Facility, and that kind of thing.

85 Q88. The Chairman: But Properties within the former Department of Transport were responsible for animal waste by-products, weren’t they?

Mr Thompson: We have still got that.

90 Q89. The Chairman: You have still got that?

Mr Thompson: Yes, and there is a very good synergy between the Energy from Waste Facility and the Animal Waste Plant being built next to each other.

95 Q90. The Chairman: So that is quite a large portfolio, then, for the Department.

Mr Thompson: It is.

______24 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Q91. The Chairman: Have you been given an increase in staffing levels in order to cope with 100 all of this?

Mr Thompson: Obviously, the general sections that we took over, we took responsibility for, such as Health and Safety, we inherited – if that is the right word – or the establishment of those areas was devolved to us. Just talking about Health and Safety, there is essentially a need for a 105 senior officer and three officers. In addition, what we actually inherited was only two posts: one had retired and the current situation is one is off sick, and there was not a senior post. We have now been successful in obtaining that post. I have selected and appointed and, in fact, we are on our way to the Work Permit Committee shortly. So that is the kind of a model of the kind of thing that we picked up. There are anomalies. For 110 instance, it is very odd , it would seem, not to have a head of Health and Safety, but because of the split up, part of the responsibility went off to DEFA and part of it stayed just as straightforward Health and Safety Inspectorate. So that is why things like that happen and that will always happen, of course, especially where people are doing multi-roles and some go off into wherever they have gone to, and you are left with a void. In other places, of course, you lose some responsibilities, so 115 you can fill that void with perhaps two thirds of a whole time equivalent that you have got.

Q92. The Chairman: Thank you for that. We found the two letters that you submitted to the Committee – the first one, 3rd September last year, and latterly 8th April this year – very revealing and also very interesting, and we thank 120 you for those. If I could just refer to the first letter, 3rd September 2010. For the benefit of the public who are present, we wrote to all Chief Executives of all newly-appointed Government Departments six months after the new structure kicked in, to ask whether or not, basically, how they are coping with this new regime. Were they identifying any problems – positives, negatives. What was 125 economic impact. What was the cost etc At that point in time, we did get some information, but a large part of the contributors did say, ‘Well, it’s too early to tell.’ So we decided to follow it up a year later, having had the new structure to kick in and bed in for a year, to see how everything was running after 12 months of operation. 130 The letter of 3rd September, you indicated in here… you said, and I quote:

‘Following the restructure, the Chief Minister indicated that he wished a review of the statutory framework in place around the Planning Committee and the Health and Safety Executive, with a view to forming two new Statutory Authorities for these functions.’ 135 How are you progressing with that?

Mr Thompson: We are out to consultation on both of them at the moment, actually. Details are on the consultation website and we put our initial thoughts out there for, really, a response from 140 the public and Members to see what their thoughts are. So it has taken a while to get where we are. It has taken a while to understand what we can and cannot do legally and quickly, but that is where we are up to. Consultation on one finishes, I think it is 14th May, and the other one sometime later.

Q93. The Chairman: You said in the beginning that, following the restructure… I take it that 145 this was after 1st April last year. (Mr Thompson: Yes.) Is it usual that once a structure has kicked in and received Tynwald approval that the Chief Minister should then come back and give you further work to do that did not form part of the original restructure?

Mr Thompson: It was part of our original mandate to investigate it when we took it over. That 150 is what we understood we were required to do – to investigate; not to deliver, but to investigate options. To give that kind of separation.

Q94. The Chairman: I just wondered why you stated it was the Chief Minister’s wish that it was reviewed. 155 Mr Thompson: I understand, Chairman. It was part of our mandate right from the start of the organisation that we investigated that further. That was in response to comments from the public and from Members.

______25 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

160 Q95. The Chairman: Okay and we understand from that letter that you have four political Members, plus the Minister. You stated that this has placed additional work onto corporate support officers. How and in what way?

Mr Thompson: It is just, really… it is quite a large number of Members to have and, for 165 instance, because they are all busy people, arranging meetings and things can be quite troublesome, because so many of them are the kind of Members that are on so many committees. So one more Member does not sound a lot, but depending on how you do the numbers, it is 20% more and it means 20% less opportunities for dates and things. It is quite difficult sometimes trying to make sure they are all up to speed with what everybody else is doing in every other 170 division. So while it is certainly not a complaint, it is a challenge at times to make sure they all know what is going on, because it is quite a few Members.

Q96. The Chairman: I am sure it is, but I would have thought that, having such a large number of political Members on one Department, it could, in fact, be perceived to be slowing the 175 work of the Department down, if one is having to run around trying to check diary dates, make sure that they are available, as and when they should be and also to try and ensure that they are all fully briefed and they all know what is going on. That in itself, surely, will slow the work of the Department down to a degree?

180 Mr Thompson: It could do, but I have to say – and I have said it to them many times, actually, and it is certainly not meant to be patronising – they are all very keen and even though they will have different views and sometimes they are happy and not happy with things, they really do work together; it is quite dynamic. I have complimented them quite often about how Members come into a Department, as diverse as ours, because we have had changes of Members. 185 Mr Crookall has been with us and then not and then back with us and how quickly they understand and pick up all the issues, which sometimes are completely alien to them. They invest the time and they keep us on our toes, as well, which is just fine.

The Chairman: Well, that is pleasing to note and can I assure you that we all work equally as 190 hard – (Laughter)

Mr Thompson: There was no suggestion you don’t.

Q97. The Chairman: No. 195 For the benefit of Hansard, I wonder if you would care to give us the names of the Members who are currently on the Department, please?

Mr Thompson: Yes. Minister Gawne, Mr Crookall, Mr Quirk, Mr Callister MLC and , Member for Ballasalla – Malew and Santon. 200 Q98. The Chairman: So, in fact, other than Mr Gawne, you have not really got a very politically experienced Member with the Department – and I say that with all due respect to the Member on my right, Mr Malarkey. But all of Mr Crookall, Mr Quirk, Mr Cregeen only came into political life… well, not five years ago, and then, of course, Mr Callister even less so. That must 205 be pretty challenging for you?

Mr Thompson: Yes, but for instance, if you take Mr Callister, who has been a political observer for probably more years than I have been around – with respect to him – and the others, of course, were in local politics before they joined, before they were elected to – 210 The Chairman: Well, two of the Members were.

Mr Thompson: Yes, they were, sorry.

215 Mr Lowey: Can I –

The Chairman: Yes, please, Mr Lowey.

Q99. Mr Lowey: – just for clarity: Chief Executive, is it not a fact that the Minister is the 220 Department? ______26 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Thompson: He is, absolutely.

Q100. Mr Lowey: And the Minister makes the ultimate decisions, so the other political input is advisory? 225 Mr Thompson: It is.

Mr Malarkey: Purely.

230 Q101. Mr Lowey: Purely advisory. I just want to get the record straight (Mr Thompson: Absolutely.) – the idea that we have a committee system of… (Mr Thompson: No.) It is not. The Minister makes the decision, after listening to them.

Mr Thompson: It is and he is very much into engaging with the Members. For instance, when 235 issues are considered, we have a process of having policy and strategy sessions. They are all there, they all give their views and whilst consensus is generally gained, the Minister will always make the decision.

Q102. Mr Lowey: Not always the case, is it? Recent performance, i.e. Ramsey pier, a majority 240 of your Members were against it.

Mr Thompson: Yes, and in fairness to them, they made their views very clear; some right from the start, some changed as they went along, but it was very clear and that is the way to have the discussion, isn’t it, open and honest, very direct. 245 Q103. Mr Lowey: I am just getting the balance.

Mr Thompson: Absolutely, yes. I am sorry if I was giving an unbalanced view.

250 Mr Lowey: Yes, I just got the impression that somehow we were in a committee and we were all balanced. It is not.

Mr Thompson: It is not a love fest, by any means, but it is certainly a good forum, not only to debate issues, but to get the facts, so that everybody is speaking from an informed basis, rather 255 than guessing.

Q104. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. It would be fair to say, though, that all political Members do have formal delegated responsibility, so they are responsible in law to take certain decisions without having to refer back 260 to the Minister. Is that correct?

Mr Thompson: Yes.

Q105. The Chairman: And they also will have, in that delegated authority, will they not, a 265 certain degree of permission to spend up to a certain amount in terms of items that might require expenditure?

Mr Thompson: It generally comes with the delegation, yes.

270 Q106. The Chairman: So they are lawfully responsible (Mr Thompson: Yes.) for what they are doing. It might interest you to know, Mr Thompson, that the policy and strategy meetings were something that I initiated when Minister Gawne was my Minister at the former Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, so it is quite pleasing to note that he is still continuing with 275 that. It is a very useful political forum. If I can turn to the 8th April 2011 letter, your first letter was very, very interesting, and then you opened your second letter, answering the question which we put, which was:

‘What problems have been identified by the Department in implementing the new Departmental structure?’ 280 And your first words were: ______27 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

‘Many problems have been encountered.’

Mr Thompson: Yes. 285 The Chairman: Would you like to expand upon that?

Mr Thompson: There are two different kinds of problem, aren’t there? One is about structure and establishing the actual framework and content of the Department itself; and then there is also 290 the work that is going on within it, that perhaps you may not have been aware of as at 1st April – for instance, disputes, planning issues, ongoing complaints in that area, financial issues, and they all arrive. Sometimes it takes a while for some of them to come out and sometimes they are there from day one. So those are the kinds of challenges, because we still had our original workload to deal 295 with but also pick up these things and actually find out what the issues were; why they hadn’t been dealt with; and understanding the problems, because it is very wrong to just go wading in as though you invented the bright idea. You have to get a briefing from the people who were involved – some were no longer available, of course, because they are not even in Government any more – and do that in a responsible manner; similarly, then, planning how you are going to 300 structure the Department. Sometimes your thoughts that you had between, say, January 2010 and 1st April, where you were learning what the new challenges were, and, from then on, change… Certainly, in the properties function, our initial thoughts have changed, not significantly, but how do we manage it and what are the challenges? We are learning more and more. So some stuff is operational and some is structural. These things evolve. So it has been, and it 305 still is… Unlike some Departments, our reorganisation, or transfer of responsibilities, is ongoing because we have not taken on board all the responsibilities yet – for instance, Health estates and Education and also properties at Home Affairs, and things like that. They are on the programme, but they were not all supposed to happen in year one; whereas, for some, those things have already happened long ago. 310 Q107. The Chairman: You say they were not all supposed to happen in year one. What was the original intention, then?

Mr Thompson: For instance, things like health, estates and education would be in probably 315 years two and three, not immediately – just because we could not actually do the work in time and put the arrangements in place, for instance merge operational workforces and things like that.

Q108. The Chairman: So who is currently operating those?

320 Mr Thompson: They are still in the original Departments. Home Affairs still looks after its own properties, and it will until, I think it is August that they come to us – except the Prison. We will not be taking the Prison.

Q109. The Chairman: So are you ready to take on these new areas of responsibility in year 325 two? Will you be ready?

Mr Thompson: Yes.

The Chairman: You will. Okay. 330 Mr Lowey.

Q110. Mr Lowey: Was it public knowledge that you were not to take these over? The announcement was that here we were, restructuring Government, and this is the end result. ‘Here is the plan – and by the way, the new Department of Infrastructure will include A, B, C, D, 335 whatever’. Was it then stated, publicly, that certain elements of it would not be taken, if you like, instantaneously on the appointed day, but would resume…? It is news to me that these things were going to be phased in, as opposed to on the appointed day.

340 Mr Thompson: For me it, has always been the case, inasmuch as if you go to when this first came onto my agenda, when I was first told about it, it was only about three months. The plan, as I understood it was – and I am almost sure the Chief Minister had said that in the first year, it would ______28 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

take about a year to get all these things in place. Not everything happened on 1st April, the structural things about where people… and things like that. 345 We have now got the Local Government Unit down at the Sea Terminal, whereas they used to be up in Murray House, as is the former DoLGE Property. They are with us in there, too. So it just takes time for all these things to happen.

Q111. Mr Lowey: I understand the structural one, but that is not quite what you said. You 350 said, for example, we have not taken over…

Mr Thompson: Yes, Home Affairs.

Mr Lowey: Therefore the specific… You are not talking about sitting them down in various 355 rooms or addresses. You say the whole structure that is going to be transferred to you has not been transferred yet.

Mr Thompson: No.

360 Q112. Mr Lowey: It is still in there, and I come back to the original question, which was was it your… You said you had three months. Members of Tynwald had three weeks, by the way, from the announcement to the decision to take… but that is another story. We are here, really… We are asking the questions that have been posed by a Member of Tynwald to us, about costs, because part of the selling of the proposition was that it would mean savings, and we are trying to identify 365 have there been savings, what have we achieved so far and what are the costs and the savings being applied? So the point is you were not aware when you… or were you aware when you started that you would not be taking over all the pre-planned or pre-stated activities into the Department, but that some would be phased over, you said, a year? Well, we have had over a year now and we still have not got something in situ. 370 Mr Thompson: No, and I am absolutely clear some of it never was to be. In the original reorganisation plan there was a central task team that you will be aware of, and they were dealing with the estates function all the way up to the New Year this year. At New Year this year we took on that lead role, the outcome of which is we have now got dates at which those 375 other three sets of property functions will transfer to us. The others, as I say, were never coming immediately. You have got to also not lose sight of the fact that there are two different exercises going on, of course. There is the budget reduction exercise that has been going on and there is the restructure of Government, and they are linked very closely but they are almost driven separately through the 380 BEAR process and the budget reduction opportunities process and reorganisation. Those are not mutually exclusive at all, one does feed off the other but, in terms of the restructuring, we were very clear. In fact, as I say, we have only really taken on board the lead role for the estates function from the New Year this year.

385 Mr Lowey: Thank you, Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr Karran.

Q113. Mr Karran: I would just like to ask… So you were informed about three months 390 before it came to Tynwald. Is there any sort of supply of information of a timeline, as far as that information as far as you being aware, because obviously it would maybe give more justification for us to be concerned that this restructuring was to try and take the eye off another rabbit, namely the Reciprocal Health Agreement? Could you supply us with some information of how the chief officers were told three months ago, and yet, as Mr Lowey says, the politicians did not know until 395 three weeks before? That is the first thing. If you could supply… Was there… There were meetings three months before with the Chief Officers’ Group.

Mr Thompson: Yes, and it was made clear to me what would be… when the reorganisation came along – if that is the right word for it, transfer of functions… what we would expect our 400 responsibilities to be. If they said to us, ‘How long do you think it is going to take to be in a position to do that?’ What would you say? Months and months. Three months. So our objective is get on with it and make it happen and, in that time, we had time to speak to staff that were coming to us, to speak to ______29 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

staff that may no longer be with us because of the shared functions, shared services process, and 405 that time went very quickly. That is what we were busy doing.

Q114. Mr Malarkey: The timing here seems to be… Three months before 1st April would take you to January, so you are telling me that you were talking to staff about the possibility in January, prior to us getting information in Tynwald. 410 Mr Thompson: No, we talked to staff probably some time in March, but we had to prepare for that and understand who would be moving where, if they moved.

Q115. Mr Malarkey: How many people within your Department at that time – that would 415 have been the DoT – were aware in January that this was a possibility of happening on 1st April?

Mr Thompson: My senior management team would have known that that was what the discussion was. In terms of officers – 420 Q116. Mr Malarkey: They would have known that in January?

Mr Thompson: They would have known it probably… I do not know the exact date. I could find the exact date for you. 425 Q117. Mr Malarkey: It would be helpful to know the exact date and it would be helpful to know exactly how many officers in your just one Department. If you are actually saying here that there were nine Departments with officers who all knew well in advance of Tynwald Members that this was a possibility… because we were only given three weeks. 430 Mr Thompson: I would guess there would be a maximum of four, i.e. the people that I would need to talk to to help me begin to sit down and understand, if these things happened, what would we do. It is as tentative as that.

435 Q118. Mr Malarkey: There were at least 30 members of Departments that knew, or 24 members…

Mr Thompson: In fairness, some may have told one, some may have told nobody.

440 The Chairman: Mr Karran.

Q119. Mr Karran: I think, Chairman, it would be a good thing to find that information out. I thought we had all the information relevant to the restructuring, but obviously we do not. So you knew about it three months before, because it does actually, then… the issue that some 445 were concerned that this restructuring was done on the back of a fag packet is not the case, then?

Mr Thompson: No.

Q120. Mr Karran: That will be interesting to have the information, to find out whether it was 450 not done for political expediency, but actually there was some sort of logical argument for it. With the budget reduction exercise, why wasn’t anything done as far as the chief officers? Some, the likes of yourself, have taken on a major increase in responsibility, whilst other officers have taken on a major reduction in their functions as chief officers. Why was there no exercise put into the Civil Service, as far as putting them on the basis of the reduction in pay after the 14 years, 455 or whatever? Is that partly because there was no real political input? Obviously, chickens do not call for an early Christmas – or even turkeys.

Mr Thompson: I cannot speak for other officers, but there are people whose… There is a proper process of appraisal of senior officer posts – in fact, officers at all levels – and that is done 460 on a points system. Those points attract seniority, in terms of how you sit in the structure. That process, for instance, for me, it is up to me to do, to make a case to be re-graded, if that is a generic word to use. To be blunt, I have hardly got time to do that, at the moment – although I have been doing the role for a year or so, now. ______30 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

465 Q121. Mr Karran: But the point is, the fact is, that there are many officers who have had a massive reduction in their responsibility, but there has been no agenda as far as… Does this just highlight the problem with the Government Department situation, that the politicians really have not got a grip of the situation and that Mr Lowey is quite right, as we know when we brought the legislation in, in 1986, the Department is the Minister and, basically, the Department Members are 470 there just to augment their pensions and their wages, as far as that is concerned?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Karran. I think that is probably a slightly different subject that perhaps we ought to take up with the Civil Service Commission. Nevertheless, thank you, Mr Thompson, you have said that your 475 workload, obviously, has greatly increased, while other officers have had their workload reduced, but there does not seem to be any adjustment, in terms of the remuneration aspect of things.

Mr Thompson: Either way.

480 Q122. The Chairman: Either way. Quite. Either way. I would have thought just that on its own might cause a little bit of disharmony, between the Chief Officers Group. One is working hard, a lot harder than some, but still only remaining on the same pay, but that is just an observation. I am not asking you to make a comment on that.

485 Mr Thompson: I appreciate that, Chairman. I think there are rules, though, about protection of salaries, but the Commission would be able to advise you on that.

Q123. Mr Lowey: As we are talking on finance, your total budget for the Department is in 490 excess of £70 million where, before, the old DoI, as it then was, was round about 60 or just below 60 and you have added all these extras on and it is now 72. The costs, you said in April to us, of the new officers and I just want to try and glean. Your reply said you have spent £78,500 on relocation costs, if that is the right word – (Mr Thompson: Yes.) – on itself and other Departments of Government. I just wonder, is that split 50-50 or is the bulk of that money your own added costs 495 for dealing and bringing these things together? In a large budget like that, it may seem – it is less than 0.001% or something – in a lump sum it is the equivalent of a couple of nurses, or a couple of policemen, or a couple of teachers or whatever. Added costs. Were those costs what I would call, annualised? In other words, do you, on an annual basis, have a changing pattern of movement of officers? I do not think you do, do you? 500 New expenditures.

Mr Thompson: There has always been across… with the size of Government, as it is, the size of a number of Departments and Offices, there are always people moving somewhere at some point. There has just been more this time when, for instance, as a result of the first year’s moves, 505 there is now one property on the market at around £800,000 that we have vacated and we have managed to finish a lease off, which I think was about £70,000. Some of the Departments have moved and you are aware of Education and the likes moving. They have met their own costs and some of them have been met by us. It just depends on the circumstances, really. 510 Q124. The Chairman: Nevertheless, if I can just follow on from what Mr Lowey said, the £78,500 is a direct cost from your Department. (Mr Thompson: Yes.) Do you regard that as value for money?

515 Mr Thompson: Well, you would have to look at each one in context, if they bring the ability for each area to work more effectively – for instance, moving the Local Government Unit into DoI’s headquarters, yes, that will always help us and it then vacates space in Murray House. We can then move somebody else in, which might help us vacate another property altogether, and give up a lease or sell. It is a kind of cascading movement, isn’t it? 520 Q125. The Chairman: Nevertheless, when you say ‘give up a property or sell’, if you have been previously occupying a property, bearing in mind now that nearly all Government property is going to be within your portfolio, if you sell that you do not keep the moneys that come in as a consequence of that sale, though, do you? 525 ______31 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Thompson: No, no, they go –

Q126. The Chairman: They go straight to Treasury, don’t they, in the central pot?

530 Mr Thompson: Yes, and that means –

Q127. The Chairman: So it is an overall saving for Government, but not necessarily for the Department?

535 Mr Thompson: Well, you cannot do enough for a good boss, Mrs Cannell! (Laughter) That is what we have been told to do, is rationalise the estate and get the most out of it, so that we are not paying out recurring costs on leases and things, if we own property.

Q128. Mr Lowey: Sweat the asset. 540 Mr Thompson: Absolutely, consolidate it. There is a standard set per officer per space and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve –

The Chairman: I noticed in one of your letters – 545 Mr Thompson: – we have got 12 square metres now.

Q129. The Chairman: In one of your letters you say that much of the expenditure is on rationalising existing office space. Is that to fit in more offices into existing space? 550 Mr Thompson: Yes, there is a space standard has been set now for anybody in an office and that standard… For instance, at the moment there are works going on in the Sea Terminal that were planned, anyway, to remove asbestos and the like from the last leg of the three legs: that work is going to be, when it is completed, on the basis of the new arrangements, which is where, 555 for instance, we focus more on open plan, we have a maximum of around 12 square meters a head and that will, hopefully, give us more space to get more people in there. We have made room down there, as I say, for the Local Government Unit, who were not in there. In the existing property space, the former DoLGE properties people are now in there by us reorganising the layout of the place and consolidating. It will be a story of that all the way through, 560 as we work through the rest of the estate.

Q130. The Chairman: Do you think that is an ideal solution with the way your personnel should be working?

565 Mr Thompson: As long as they are in appropriate conditions, yes, inasmuch as we should be maximising – I think Mr Lowey said sweat the asset – and that is absolutely right and that is what Government should be doing. To make sure we have got what we need, not just living in what we have, and that may include actually being brave enough to say let us have a new one, because we can get rid of all those, because this would be more appropriate. 570 I have a strategy for the rationalisation of the Department of Infrastructure’s depots, that the Minister and the Members have been party to and have set to me as a task to achieve. Part of that may, in the end, be that to get rid of five or six depots, we need one new one, but that is a big ask to say, Members, would you please support us and vote us the money to spend on building a new shed somewhere. It does not sound very wholesome, does it? It is about a business case – 575 The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Thompson: – but it is also about priorities, isn’t it?

580 Q131. The Chairman: Well, it is, but it is also about any kind of capital build is going to have a revenue implication, as well. It is increasing your revenue obligations at a time, really, when we cannot afford to do that.

Mr Thompson: In fairness, probably these days, when we invest capital in a new property, its 585 ongoing revenue costs will invariably be proportionately less, because you build it to better standards, better insulation, less heating costs and the like and, of course, designed to more ______32 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

appropriate standards. So many properties we are in, we are making use of by making it fit, as opposed to building something that is appropriate.

590 The Chairman: Mr Malarkey.

Q132. Mr Malarkey: Well, Mr Karran has actually taken a little bit of what I was talking about, about your personal workload. I look at the budget that it came from originally, which was about £50 million; it has gone up 595 to about £76 million, the figures I have in front of me, which is about a 50% increase. How would you say the workload… I know workload and money are not necessarily the same. Has your workload in that 12 months gone up 50% or 60%?

Mr Thompson: There are only so many hours you can work, and I record my time that I do. I 600 do not do this on my own.

Mr Malarkey: No, no, I am going to come to that in a second.

Mr Thompson: I have a team. 605 Mr Malarkey: What I am trying to… not necessarily your personal workload, but quantity of work that requires doing: from this time last year or 18 months ago, how much has it gone up?

Mr Thompson: We are certainly busy. I would not like to put a percentage on it, but inasmuch 610 as if I was working an 11-hour day, then I am still working 11-hour days, but we might be working on something different. In fairness, for instance, we take on board responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, for planning and building regulations function, but we do get a directive with that. It is just that the work that we may inherit around them is bigger, but some of it is fresh, as you know.

615 Q133. Mr Malarkey: I want to move to your directors and to your executive staff. Has it been necessary to give them pay increases or grade increases because of the workload that is now flowing their way?

Mr Thompson: None of our team has had their grade reviewed yet – 620 Mr Malarkey: You mean none since the –

Mr Thompson: – and that is only because of priorities, Mr Malarkey. It is not because I am refusing to look at it. In fact, none of them have asked because they understand the position we are 625 in. Nevertheless, it is a job that we have to do, we are duty-bound to do, for everybody, but it is certainly not viewed as an opportunity… ‘Oh, here we go, here’s a…’ It is very important we do pay people properly to do the job properly.

630 Q134. Mr Malarkey: So it has not affected morale in any way? I refer back to the fact that Mr Karran said your workload has probably increased by at least 50%. Health has lost 40% by it going off to Social Care. How is morale within the Department, with all this extra work that you have to do?

635 Mr Thompson: You would have to ask others, because what do you think I am going to say? It is dreadful? They all hate me? At the same time, I am not going to con you by saying they all love me, either. I get, quite often, asked how long have I got to go before I see retirement!

Q135. Mr Malarkey: Have you noticed a change of mood within the past 18 months? 640 Mr Thompson: Absolutely not – I think it is better than ever.

Mr Malarkey: You do? That is encouraging.

645 Mr Thompson: I do. People… You have to just take this as you would expect me to say it: some of my management team find all this very exciting, because it is change and challenge and

______33 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

something different for them, rather than just doing what they have done all day. Some, yes, they have creaked a bit. My management team from when Mrs Cannell: there are only two left on it, of the originals. 650 Things change, people change, and with that, you get either benefits of one kind or another, in terms of their work ethic, whatever they focus on. Some people are strategic thinkers, some people are the nuts and bolts.

Q136. Mr Malarkey: I think that is the point you are trying to get at: your changing 655 management team and you are having to bring people in. Are you actually having to give them increased wage levels to get them to take up this job which now has a lot more responsibility?

Mr Thompson: The people affected – for instance, Director of Planning, Airport Director, people like that – it has not really changed for them. It is the core, really – the likes of Mrs Craig, 660 the Finance Director, people like that, and even their roles… The Finance Director, for instance, who was in charge of management services within the Department, his role will change, and in fact, I have just selected a new one of those, because a lot of the financial team that we had in the Department is now going to Treasury shared services. So there are always changes. It is very hard to compare an apple with an apple, these days. 665 Q137. The Chairman: If I can just follow on, you are saying there are always changes: assuming that there have always been changes, since the restructuring kicked in, do you envisage there will ever be a time when there will not ‘always be changes’ – when the Department will stabilise? 670 Mr Thompson: Well, today – again, you would expect me to say this – the Department is stable. We know what we are doing – well, we believe; there are quite a few who do not! But we believe we know what we are doing, we know where we are going. By ‘stabilisation’, if you mean it is all over, we have finished, I think there is always something around the corner that is going to 675 change things, be it change to the economy, change to demand. The Airport numbers are down at the moment: with a change in the economy and change in the financial environment, we could be way up, in two years’ time, on where we are now. Who knows?

Q138. The Chairman: I am not really asking you about the overall (Mr Thompson: I’m 680 sorry.) whole economic picture, because that is taken for granted that, with those sorts of things, nothing is the same from day to day. But the actual structure of your new Department bedding in – all the relocations which have not yet taken place, assuming the extra responsibilities, which you have not done yet, do you envisage a point in time, looking forward, when all of those will be in place and everything will be 685 singing and dancing and doing business as usual?

Mr Thompson: More than it is now? (The Chairman: Yes.) The answer has got to be yes, hasn’t it? But I do think, for instance, a change in regime: we are the Department of Infrastructure. There 690 is part of this Island’s infrastructure that is not with us. In the UK, just to be extreme – this is not a proposal, just in case it happens – for instance, the railway infrastructure is not with the railway companies. That could happen. We are an engineering Department. It would be a logical thing to do and somebody may come along and suggest that. Please not for a bit! But, seriously, that is an option, isn’t it? That is infrastructure. 695 So we are in a platform where anything could happen, but I do see it, at the moment, we are stable. There is more change to come, and, at the end of it, yes, I think that will be the end of the process, but who knows?

Q139. The Chairman: So what period of time would you envisage for that, then? 700 Mr Thompson: Three or four years from now, I would have thought.

Q140. The Chairman: Three or four years from now?

705 Mr Thompson: When it is completely finished and there is no… There will always be, for instance, as the property function changes, if we are successful… It is not a good time now, is it, to be getting rid of property? We have development sites that the Department had before the changes ______34 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

came, that probably are not very attractive in the marketplace at the moment, but may well be, once developers have got the confidence to go out buying sites and reinvesting. So that will 710 change the way we look, then, because to make sites available means you have got to change again. If we sell Weatherglass Corner in Peel – great site, we are gradually vacating it – but to do that, we will have to move a lot of equipment out of there. That will change things for us. But those are structural changes; they are not major changes. They are just how you do things changing a bit. 715 The Chairman: So you envisage four to five years, then?

Mr Thompson: Some things will take that time before perhaps the property portfolio we want to achieve has happened. There may be new opportunities before then, to change things again. 720 Q141. The Chairman: In hindsight, would you consider that, in fact, it is all worth it, all worthwhile – having a Department as huge as the one you are heading up?

Mr Thompson: I have no issues with it at all. It certainly is not a handful; it is a challenge, but 725 it is what puts the spring in our step – certainly in mine, and I believe my team. They really have risen… I could not ask my people to do more than they have done. They have done it all willingly, and they have always done it with a will to still do and serve the individual Members they have in their respective Divisions, in just the same way. I am not aware of any of the core team of officers that has helped me with this saying to their Member, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t do’ – whatever it is – ‘for 730 you.’

The Chairman: Mr Malarkey.

Q142. Mr Malarkey: Just to follow up on that, really, a straight answer: at the end of the day, 735 all this extra work, all this moving around, all these extra hours, do you honestly think it is going to be worth it and we are going to be more efficient?

Mr Thompson: Yes.

740 Q143. The Chairman: Can I, just before I invite the Members to run with some of the questions that we have been looking at… We have talked about your own workload, your Chief Officers’ Group, your staff in general, morale, costings, logistics of the movements to and from that have taken place and others that are going to come forward, but what about the public interface? You make the point in your letter that the former Department of Transport actually had 745 quite a strong public interface. Everybody knew there was a Department of Transport and what it was responsible for, where and how to make contact with them. Of course, that has all changed now. You say in your letter you are not aware of any complaints, but have you tested it with the general public, with your customers? 750 Mr Thompson: You may probably be aware, Mrs Cannell, from your previous time you spent with the Department: people are not frightened of coming forward and telling us when we got it wrong, or making complaints. That has not been an issue. We have not experienced it. If we are gloriously oblivious to it, then I would only want to apologise, but we have not experienced that 755 problem at all. In fact, I have been quite impressed, the way, for instance, in letters, that members of the public are clear we are Infrastructure. I do not remember when we were last called ‘Transport’. At least people have stopped asking us about bus timetables and things like that, now – which as you know was always a problem! It is a lot clearer now to folk, I think, how it works. 760 I think probably people sometimes do not realise that places like the Airport, which has its own identity, is us. I have done something about that: the Infrastructure corporate image is down there now – not that it really matters. But, no, we have not really experienced the problems, no.

765 Q144. The Chairman: Are you running with any kind of key performance indicators as a consequence of all of these different responsibilities so that you can test how effective all of these changes are in terms of the mechanics of the inter-departmental working, but also the interface with the public? ______35 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Thompson: If you take a KPI as being, for instance, how many complaints you have, we 770 have, in fact, just sent a return in centrally to tell people how many complaints we have had, and there is no real change. I really hate complaints, but I welcome them, inasmuch as they are things to tell us if we have not got something right and I certainly would not conceal any of them. Sometimes a complaint… When somebody says there is a pothole in the road, is that a complaint? Probably not; it is just 775 somebody giving you some feedback. Somebody who thinks we have got a reason to stand up and be counted because we caused an accident because of something we have done, and it is a complaint, it is probably also something far more serious. Yes, they are genuine complaints and they are opportunities to focus and say, ‘Perhaps we have not got this right and we should do it differently.’ Quite seriously, I have no 780 issues with complaints. It is nice to get compliments, and we do get them, despite –

Q145. The Chairman: Have you found any confusion amongst the general public? Whereas you have absorbed responsibilities that came under other Departments, has there been any confusion? 785 Mr Thompson: I do not see everything but, from my own experience, in the time since last April, I think there is only one complaint from the public that we have had to redirect to somebody else, where they just got the wrong people. Invariably, those kinds of complaints really are transport issues, like the train was late or the bus went past the stop. It is not a kind of deep-seated 790 thing; it just somebody wants to shout at somebody, and we get it. We have not experienced it – quite seriously.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Lowey. 795 Q146. Mr Lowey: First of all, can I just say that, as someone who does phone occasionally to the DoI, can I congratulate whoever you have got on the phone, for their always courteous way and there is a smile in their voice. So there is the compliment for you.

800 Mr Thompson: We will make sure that gets back to them.

Q147. Mr Lowey: Now comes the kick! This exercise was sold – you may say rightly or wrongly – on the element of savings to Government. It was forced, if you like… it was the chariot, the horses that were pulling the cart: 805 there were savings to be made. I know the private sector have said, ‘Change and you will save money.’ I am sure, Mr Thompson, after a year, you will be able to catalogue the savings. I did question before about the £78,500 for the property. You very kindly put the other side of the equation: ‘Yes, that is what the upfront costs were, but there were savings. We were able to get rid of one building, and sell another’, or whatever it was, but there were two sides to the equation. 810 Those were the upfront costs; these were the savings. Can you itemise to me and the general public, just what are the savings that you have been able to achieve in the first 12 of months of this new regime?

Mr Thompson: We will have met our budget targets – the revised figures we were set. 815 Mr Lowey: You always met your targets, sir.

Mr Thompson: Yes, but that is an achievement in this day and age. In fact, we will have beaten some of those targets because, despite what has been going on, we have absorbed extra fuel 820 costs, we have dealt with ash at the Airport. The Airport on paper will have really suffered badly, but we have been able to absorb a lot of those things. The savings that will be made – some of them will come over time and some of them are instant – are, for instance, with workforces, where you can actually merge groups of people, like Health will have joiners; we have some joiners; Education has some joiners; and we will end up 825 with a team of joiners. It will bring obvious changes in terms of the administration. We will not be replacing some people and that kind of thing. Generally, those kinds of savings will be easier to make, because you do not have different gangs of people almost competing against each other. They are all in the same team, and you get the benefit of them all using the same depots and the same plant, and that kind of thing. ______36 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

830 Mr Lowey: That is the theory –

Mr Thompson: Well, that will happen.

Q148. Mr Lowey: And you are practically looking at… you have had a year. Is there a litmus 835 paper of achievement? That is what I am really asking.

Mr Thompson: Well, we –

Mr Lowey: Someone will come along – if it is not this Committee, it will be another 840 committee – in the future, and say, ‘What have you achieved? Where is the sum total?’

Mr Thompson: In the last year, for instance, we have significantly reduced areas of the Highways Division budgets, and they have still been delivered. So how do you do that? Well, you lose some things. We perhaps do not trim as many miles of hedges as we used to do. So there are 845 things like that done. We were helped along the year in some areas, as you are aware, by Treasury supporting us with actually increasing some budgets to do things like structural repairs to roads and responding to… I think the snow, overall, cost us £1 million. Most of that has been absorbed. How precisely we did it, I could not tell you off the top of my head precisely, but that is by not doing some 850 things. But, generally, in terms of immediate impact on the public, it is probably not discernible. So it was probably exactly the right thing to do, wasn’t it?

Mr Lowey: Thank you. That wasn’t such a bad kicking, was it, really?

855 The Chairman: Mr Karran.

Q149. Mr Karran: So capital… Obviously, you selling property, you would actually get the capital appraisal, as far as your own Department’s loss of… that debt would be taken off the capital debt of your Department, so you do get that still, don’t you? 860 Mr Thompson: If we sell a property, the receipt goes straight into – (Mr Karran: Yes, but – ) I will give a very simple one: when we sold the house at Braddan to Joey Dunlop, obviously all the receipts for that went to the centre, to Treasury, less the cost of any preparation works that we did, fees and things like that. So we do not lose from it, although ultimately, we will not be 865 spending the rates, the heating and the electric –

Q150. Mr Karran: But the capital costs on your Department would be a reappraised –

Mr Thompson: Capital charges. 870 Mr Karran: It will go down by £800,000, if you sell a property for £800,000 from your Department.

Mr Thompson: No, no. 875 Similarly, some of the properties we have, of course, do not have capital charges on them, anyway. They are just an asset, because we have had them that long – as opposed to a newer one, where you are still paying –

Q151. Mr Karran: If you sell an asset of a Department, the money goes to the Treasury, but it 880 used to be that the Treasury would then take that debt off any capital debt that was on the Department.

Mr Thompson: If there still is.

885 Q152. Mr Karran: On the general Department. And is there no general debt on the Department of Infrastructure?

Mr Thompson: Yes, we still have capital charges; the issue is that some of the properties you sell do not have capital charges on them, because they are that old. 890 ______37 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Karran: Yes, I understand that, but surely the capital value of the £800,000 going to Treasury… It used to be that they would take £800,000 off your departmental capital debt, as far as your Department was concerned, so unless it has changed… It would be interesting to find that out. 895 Mr Thompson: Yes, I am probably not understanding the question, Mr Karran.

Q153. Mr Karran: No, no, they might have changed it, in the last couple of years, as they have done quite a few things. 900 Allowing for the fact that you take three properties several years ago, as far as rental accommodation, was in the region between £1.2 million and £1.5 million worth of revenue costs, if I remember rightly, as far as the rental costs are concerned, what sort of real savings have we seen as far as office accommodation costs with your Department? I know we have had the £78,000 costs, as far as the increasing costs for the changing over of your Department. Have there been any 905 real savings, as far as office accommodation costs as far as your Department, with the new structure becoming the new Department of Infrastructure?

Mr Thompson: The target for… We have an organisation now which probably you are not familiar with at the moment within DoI, which is called SAMU – they are awful names, aren’t 910 they? – the Strategic Asset Management Unit. They believe that the revenue saving on office accommodation that they will achieve by the rationalisations will be, by 2019, £1½ million a year, and that is just rent you are not paying any more. That is ignoring any income you might have.

Q154. Mr Karran: Well that takes care of three offices that we had, when you allow for the 915 fact that I think we were paying £400,000 for Finch Hill; about £500,000 for the Department of Education, or something crazy like that.

Mr Thompson: But they have moved again now.

920 Q155. Mr Karran: Absolutely. Yes. And then you take the Attorney General’s department, I think they were another… were they £600,000? I think questions I asked about five years, maybe 10 years, ago it was – what costs have we got by them moving? Are there any costs to Government, with you having overall responsibility as far as… I think the Finch Hill was something like a 20-year lease on Finch Hill, which, fair enough, the FSC are still in – is there any 925 large scale costs as far as rental commitments that we have still got, even though we have vacated the property?

Mr Thompson: If I am understanding you properly, the process has only just started about, really, decanting and moving people around. For instance, some people have expanded in the 930 property they have. For instance, Treasury has part now of where DTL used to be, so that isn’t… that is a net increase. But, as I say, at the moment we will have achieved putting… we moved all these Departments around within what we have got. We have a property on the market, which means it is empty, and we have a lease that we have given up. There will be a series of those in the not-too-distant future. 935 Q156. Mr Karran: Are there any long-term commitments as far as the leases are concerned, allowing for the fact that we were working about 10 years ago, we needed something like £30 million of our reserves just to pay the long-term rental income on our private sector and accommodation costs? Would it be a lot more now, because interest rates have come down 940 somewhat? Could you possibly give us a breakdown, if you are doing all of this office accommodation costs? Of course, this was one of the things that was supposed to be sold – ‘we’re going to save all this money, we’re going to be so much more efficient’. Can you actually identify real savings against service cutbacks? 945 You mentioned the fact that you do not trim hedges as much as you used to do. It would be interesting to see what the Department’s real savings are, by this ‘wonderful’ initiative of the Council of Ministers, as far as the restructuring of Government is concerned – tongue in cheek! It would be really interesting to see where those real savings are.

______38 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

950 Mr Thompson: Well, in terms of the properties, there is a long… I have two particular areas that I am looking at at the moment, within DoI. I mentioned one: getting out of Weatherglass Corner. There is another one at the other end of the harbour in Peel. So there are lots of opportunities like that, that are in the pipeline, that we will achieve – but most of those, you do have to get out of something and put it somewhere else. 955 Q157. Mr Karran: I have to be fair: they are not the sort of things that I am looking at. They are things that we have owned since the Crown owned them. I am really more interested to see… That is important to utilise, for economic development, we have got to start earning income. That is fantastic, we can get more jobs in the construction industry outside of us. 960 What I am concerned about is the likes of the private sector rental accommodation that Government has. We were complaining about this 10 years ago, about the fact that we had Rose Estates, we had Finch Hill and we did not even know who we were renting off.

The Chairman: Mr Karran, because we are running quite late, can I just try and simplify, I 965 think, what Mr Karran is after from you?

Mr Karran: I do not need you to simplify it.

The Chairman: No, I know you don’t, but nevertheless – 970 Mr Thompson: The Chairman wants to help me understand.

Q158. The Chairman: – the Committee needs to know. You identified two properties. One, if it is sold, valued at £800,000; one lease to relinquish, 975 value at £70,000, per year, I take it? (Interjection by Mr Thompson) Yes. If those two, for instance, go ahead, what will be the direct savings to the Department?

Mr Thompson: Well, certainly, straight away the lease costs, the rates that they pay on it and the ongoing charges. No doubt there is a service charge in there as well. So those are the kinds of 980 things we would save.

Q159. The Chairman: With regard to the many leases of the private properties that have been used by Government in the past, is there any lease, that you know of, where there is a long-term commitment? In other words, another 20 years, for example, to run on the lease that you were 985 aware of?

Mr Thompson: You will have to forgive me, Chairman. Properties, the Strategic Asset Management Unit, has only just come to us, so I am not over familiar with what they do. I certainly know what DoI was doing in terms of its properties and what it could and could not get 990 rid of and, as you are probably aware, we ourselves are landlords to people who we rent properties to.

Q160. The Chairman: So currently, then, you are not aware whether any of these properties that come under your new Department, or are about to come under your new Department, do in 995 fact have a tie, in terms of the Government have committed to the lease for another 10 or 20 years?

Mr Thompson: Personally, off the top of my head, I could not give you the answer to that, but my Head of the Strategic Asset Management Unit could.

1000 Q161. The Chairman: Could you gather that information for us?

Mr Thompson: Yes, of course.

The Chairman: It would be very useful. 1005 Mr Malarkey has one more question.

Q162. Mr Malarkey: Just a reminder, could we have the dates of when you were informed and how many officers were informed?

1010 Mr Thompson: Yes. ______39 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Malarkey: I will be requesting the Clerk to get that information, not just from your Department, but from all of the Departments as well. I am not singling you out.

Mr Thompson: No, no. 1015 The Chairman: Okay, thank you. I would like to call on our Clerk, Mr King, to put one final question, I think.

Q163. The Clerk: Thank you very much, Mrs Cannell. 1020 I did have one question in mind for Mr Thompson: talking about efficiencies and economies of scale, looking at it top down and across the whole of Government, you have given examples of Estates Services, and we have talked a bit about the assets themselves, talked about joiners as another illustration which came up. I think the Committee understands that if you have three groups of joiners working in different places, you bring them together, you can have a more 1025 efficient service.

Mr Thompson: One workshop instead of three.

The Clerk: Yes. Could that have been done without restructuring the departmental structure of 1030 Government?

Mr Thompson: Some of it… For instance, we as DoT were in discussion with the Department of Education about the opportunity of putting workforces together like that, or at least sharing resources – a long time ago, and it was gradually moving forward. This has helped us really focus 1035 and pull it onto the agenda. It gives us the support to say, ‘Right, we have got a mandate to do this now’, rather than just talking about it. People are always resistant to change. Sometimes, when somebody sets you a high target, it forces you to get on with it.

1040 Q164. The Clerk: Okay, well then, can I ask, has the new structure introduced any new boundaries? There are always boundaries. Has it introduced any new barriers to efficiency?

Mr Thompson: You are going to take this answer as it comes, which is: not that I am aware of. One thing we found, for instance – and Mrs Craig has just pointed one out to me – we have 1045 obviously, as now the Department responsible for local authorities, come into a process of having to deal with their petitions to take cash to do… I don’t know – kitchens or window refurbishment. We found there a huge process, in terms of – and forgive me for using this word – the ‘ritual’ of getting an approval, so you can actually start to put in a kitchen in a local authority house. We are finding ways now of cutting out some of that stuff that gets you to the point at which you can say, 1050 ‘Do the job’, so it makes it quicker – and that is what matters. When you see things where tenders are received and it is weeks and weeks later before it starts, that is the kind of thing that demotivates people and must really make, ultimately, the customer out there fed up. ‘The kitchen is coming soon’ – it is like Gone with the Wind, isn’t it? – as opposed to ‘It’s going to start then, and everything’s tickety-boo’, and then there are all these fingers in the 1055 pie, to get there. Those are the efficiencies that this is going to bring, because it challenges processes like that. If we need to change legislation to make those things happen more quickly, let us do it – well, you will do it.

1060 Q165. The Chairman: Nevertheless, if I can just recap on that, what you are saying is that you have discovered a load of unnecessary bureaucracy in respect of that particular area and you have identified ways of cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr Thompson: Yes. 1065 Q166. The Chairman: But, again, that could have happened, could it not, without the restructuring of Government?

Mr Thompson: Restructuring: for instance, in terms of petitions, we were not in that loop 1070 anyway, originally, but we have now found that we are and that has made us do a process map on the whole thing to see how many people in the Department of Social Care are involved. CPU is ______40 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

involved in Treasury; there is a project manager down there somewhere. How can you just make it work quicker but without losing the appropriate levels of governance? The governance is there for good reasons, but if the system is changed it might not be appropriate any more. It does not mean 1075 it was rubbish; it just means the focus has changed or the requirements have changed. That is just one example. Certainly I am not saying what was there was wrong; it just does not fit the model today. We can do it quicker.

Q167. The Chairman: But nevertheless, you could change that model, could you not? 1080 Mr Thompson: We were not in it.

Q168. The Chairman: No, but the model could have been changed without the requirement of a total restructure. 1085 If there was a will there with the relevant Department that was responsible at the time for that, it could have been restructured.

Mr Thompson: Yes, I suppose in some ways that one is different slightly because we are involved now, as we weren’t before, and it is just that there are always better ways of doing things: 1090 if you have got the time to sit and think about them, there is. Sometimes the better and the brilliant idea actually is not so good one day when you get there, but it is always worth having a look, isn’t it?

The Chairman: Okay. Mr Karran has got one very short question, I understand. 1095 Q169. Mr Karran: What I would like to know is have we seen any real cuts in management, upper management, as far as the restructuring is concerned? If you could possibly pass that on to our Clerk and we can have a look at those because this was all sold on this great efficiency, effectiveness and saving the taxpayer money, so it would be interesting to see what sort 1100 of vacancies have been created because, obviously, if you have got joiners from two different groupings, they do their job, but the management should be able to be cut for it. So if you could pass that on to the Committee –

Mr Thompson: Yes, I can tell you now. For instance, the way we operate, we used to have – 1105 going back again, perhaps even to Mrs Cannell’s day – a Division called Design Services; that has now been absorbed into Operations. So the Head of what was the old Works Division has now got that in it and that particular post has a Director in it that probably has just over another year to go, and he will not be replaced at that level. So that is one Director less at that level. It is very easy to be seen to be not to be replacing people at the bottom, isn’t it? 1110 Mr Karran: Absolutely.

Mr Thompson: That is not what we are about.

1115 Q170. Mr Karran: That is the worry that we have. But the point is, allowing for the fact… how many staff have you got? A thousand staff?

Mr Thompson: Around about 800 at the moment. Probably when shared services happens, we will be up to about 1,000. I think I have got that right. 1120 Q171. Mr Karran: So one middle management, you know – it is a good job you have got your brains there as I say, you know… So you have said one staff. Could you possibly give some idea with this? Obviously, one of the things that the Chief Minister’s argument was, it was to be more efficient, more effective, and I 1125 think it is very revealing that you knew three months and the Members of Tynwald did not know at all until a couple of weeks, which is not a criticism of you, but it just shows how much the parliamentary system is turning into a rubber stamp –

Q172. The Chairman: Okay. Thanks, Mr Karran. 1130 Mr Thompson, if you could provide any information as to the amount of jobs that you have been able to save?

______41 TS STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 5th MAY 2011

Mr Thompson: Can I just add something to that because, of course, on some things we will actually increase our numbers of staff, not just by people coming to us, but, for instance, Health 1135 and Safety did not have a Director. It had nobody in charge of it. That post was given up as part of the savings because the management of it was going somewhere else in the former DoLGE. When the former DoLGE goes off and leaves it behind, you need a Director. So you will see that some things have actually increased.

1140 Q173. Mr Karran: If we could have that as a clear picture so that we actually know what is fact and what is fiction. That is all I want.

Mr Thompson: Yes, I am just warming you up to the idea. It does not mean numbers all go down, because some areas have to go up because you have created something that was not there 1145 before.

Mr Karran: We understand that, but the point was –

Mr Lowey: Davis was there before, but anyway that’s another matter. 1150 Mr Karran: The point is it was sold on the idea that we were going to stop the duplication and make sure that we have efficiencies and a more effective Government with a world recession on our shorelines – and what is fact and what is fiction…

1155 Mr Thompson: And that should still be achieved.

The Chairman: Alright, Mr Thompson –

Mr Thompson: Thank you, Chairman. 1160 The Chairman: – and Mrs Craig, thank you very much for attending – and for being quite frank and open with us today. If there is anything that perhaps you are doubtful as to what it is directly that we are asking you to provide to us in writing, if you could liaise with our Clerk, Mr King, who has been taking 1165 minutes and notes. Thank you very much. Thank you to Members of the public. The Committee are now finished with their evidence for today. Thank you very much.

The Committee sat in private at 4.53 p.m.

______42 TS