Has anyone read the report prepared for government by the Social Policy Research Institute? It is on the government’s website. Come to that, has anyone in the House of Assembly read it?
If government paid for this report, they have not gotten value for money.
Whilst I don’t have any disagreement with the recommendations, there are so many mistakes, typographical errors, and instances of bad grammar that one can see it was probably prepared by a non-native English speaker, as evidenced by the names at the top.
Couldn’t the SPRI afford a spell-checker and a proof-reader? Or even a mathematician?
For a start, the background material they rely on includes the last census (notoriously inaccurate); details from very old reports on the islands (I think we had a 1955 copy at the Old Government House Museum); and departmental reports which are questionable in their accuracy. Meanwhile, it includes no reports at all when it comes to discretionary grants of the past.
The authors confess that this lack of information and the short timescale given to complete the report have presented challenges.
They have my sympathy, but is that an excuse for presentation errors?
Some of the errors
We are variously referred to in the report as the Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, and the BVI. Apparently, we consist of four small islands (page 7) or is it main islands (also page 7) and 50 small ones, with a total land area of 150 squared meters (sic).
Additionally, 80 percent of our population is on Virgin Gorda (page 6) — or is it Tortola (page 7)? Outsiders wouldn’t know.
Also, apparently we still produce livestock, rum, paint, gravel, charcoal, fruits and vegetables, which we export to the United States VI.
See what I mean about copying old reports?
Here are some interesting numbers the report gleaned from statistics provided to the authors:
- estimated population: 30,000;
- people enrolled in National Health Insurance: 33,776;
- employed people: 20,825;
- pensioners: 3,783; and
- schoolchildren: 4,641.
Give or take the unemployed, people employed off the books, the self-employed (including drugs and so on), and some odds and ends, it’s no wonder we don’t know where we are.
There are far too many errors to list here, but pages 42 (bottom of table) and 43 (discourse) give you some idea.
Enough of my carping!
Suggestions ‘fine’
The suggestions for improving our social services are fine, especially to increase the minimum wage, but they must be funded. Given the way the government is reportedly struggling to balance the NHI accounts (a problem of its own making with the inclusion of private health providers but no clampdown on costs), and its habit of borrowing funds from the Social Security Board, the only recourse is more taxation of some sort.
Therein lies another problem: We have employers either employing staff off the books or collecting their taxes and not forwarding them to government. When is government going to clamp down on this practice and start prosecuting delinquents?
The large number of expat workers raises the question of how they are taxed, especially if they can derive no benefit.
The report makes one small mention of corruption on Page 31.
Bureaucracy
The authors think, rightly, that our bureaucracy is way over the top, with lengthy forms and application processes, and government departments do not have enough staff to cope. So what on earth do the rest do?
Recently, I believe the deputy governor, who is in charge of the civil service, indicated that the number of public officers had fallen from 4,000-plus to about 2,800, with no explanation but maybe something to do with Covid.
They certainly need to tighten up on discretionary grants given at the whim of legislators, with a proper system within Social Security, so that favouritism and related issues are minimised.
The report is 57 pages, far too long for a minister to take in, so either some civil service minions will be asked to come up with proposals — or to find a suitable shelf.
(Amuse yourselves by seeing how many errors you can find!)