A rave for reviews

RECENTLY I spent an interesting morning watching Guernsey's Scrutiny Committee questioning Professor Kathleen Marshall, the author of a professional review into the implementation of Guernsey's Children Law.

Having taken a few swipes at those responsible for the scrutiny process during this political term it's probably only fair for me to say that I think this exercise has been worthwhile. I only hope that the outcomes are equally positive.

Why do I support this review? Because any major change such as the new Children Law has to get two things right. Firstly, the new legal regime itself needs to be an improvement on what went before. Secondly, it needs to be implemented well by all the professionals concerned and properly understood by those ordinary islanders impacted by the changes.

Inevitably the implementation was never going to be 100% perfect given the revolutionary nature of the reforms. So to ensure that Guernsey is getting the maximum benefit out of the new law it made total sense to have a post-implementation review. That will allow the regime to be tweaked in the light of experience.

That said, I have to say that when Scrutiny first announced they intended to carry out such a review I had severe reservations. Were Scrutiny the right people for the job, particularly when a couple of members seemed to have pre-conceived and entrenched views on the subject? Shouldn't those political boards actually overseeing the law be commissioning a professional review off their own bat? Wasn't there a danger that a typical scrutiny hearing, held in public, could lead to all sorts of sensitive details about family situations being made public when they should clearly remain confidential?

It had all the makings of a disastrous dog's breakfast, but to be fair it hasn't turned out that way at all. That was largely down to the core decision by the Scrutiny Committee early on to realise their own limitations and to commission a professional reviewer well versed in this area of practise rather than trying to do it themselves.

As a result we have a thoughtful piece of work which, if taken seriously, should enable the changes brought in five years ago to evolve and realise their maximum benefit.

That's not to say that I agree with every jot and tittle of the report.

Nor do I think it's realistic in the current climate to expect the States to fund every one of Prof. Marshall's recommendations. But the report does provide an excellent template for discussions over how we can further improve the States' provision in this vital area of social policy.

Let's consider a few of the recommendations.

Prof. Marshall told Scrutiny that some of the strongest voices she had heard came from about 10 people who felt very aggrieved either by the way that they had been treated by the safeguarder service or by the outcomes from that process. She explained that was to be expected. The safeguarders are a group of professionals who look into family circumstances and provide reports to the court to help them decide what to do in the best interest of the child concerned. The professor said inevitably there would always be some who felt upset and angry by the outcomes from this process.

Her answer? An independent review of the service.

I agree 100%. Not because I have any reason at all to believe it's not functioning well – I don't. But simply as a sensible exercise in quality control.

Just as in health care, education or the women's refuge, I have always supported the concept of periodic review.

Firstly because few, if any, such services are absolutely perfect and an outside pair of eyes is always useful in finding ways to improve. Secondly because just occasionally there are serious failings and it's vital they are identified. Thirdly, even when services are absolutely exemplary it's important to confirm this in order to reassure both those working within them and the public.

Other areas of concern? Well, it seems there's a clause within the law which technically stops those who have been through family court proceedings talking about them – to anyone.

That's clearly over the top, but any reform needs to be carefully considered. Yes, anyone who has been through such a stressful experience has to be able to share that with those close to them or others providing emotional support. However, a carte blanche to make proceedings public could be very damaging to other parties involved in the court proceedings who have a right to expect confidentiality.

The situation in Alderney also merited its own section of the professor's report.

Clearly the systems to protect children at risk in that island need to be reviewed. But a word of warning – I know from experience that getting a perfect system in such a small community will be very tricky. Maybe it would be a good idea for Health and Social Services to bring Prof. Marshall back to do a smaller, more focused piece of work given her experience in Scottish islands?

The professor was also clearly shocked to discover Guernsey was one of the few territories not to have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. She needn't have been. It's certainly appalling, but I'm afraid it's par for the course. We've also constantly refused to sign the UN convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.

Perhaps the central finding of the report was that awareness of the law and the procedures surrounding it need to be more ingrained into Guernsey's collective psyche. This obviously included the public, who could come into contact with the law, but it also applied to the professionals.

There was a particular issue with social workers recruited from England when the Guernsey law is based on the Scottish system. Unless they were very clearly instructed in how things work here they would naturally tend to fall back on the practise they were used to.

The solution? Far more training for a start.

It's very hard to argue against that, but the obvious limitation will be resources in the current challenging times. The same applies to the other main conclusion that Guernsey needs to produce far more data about outcomes. Of course it does, but the dis-economies of scale make it very expensive to produce stats on the same scale as bigger communities. I guess it's a question of deciding what the really key figures are that will help to guide future policy.

The overall verdict? The Children Law is an excellent piece of social legislation, but both its implementation and the measurement of its outcomes need to improve.

That comes as a relief to me as the former HSSD minister who presented the drafting proposals to the States, even though all the heavy lifting was done by the former Children Board who actually devised the new regime.

My verdict of the Scrutiny Review? A worthwhile exercise which should actually help to improve government.

That's what the scrutiny process should be all about. Of course there were a few daft questions asked during the public hearing, but overall I give this review 8/10. Now, can we have more of the same please?