Mergers and accusations

SO, the slow burn of change in the States is creeping on. And with it, focus has fallen now on the scrutiny process and whether it is effective in terms of producing results and what it costs.

Merging the Scrutiny Committee and the Public Accounts Committee is seen in some quarters as the answer, as well as ridding the new body of its political membership, in effect allowing more deputies to concentrate on policy development.

The concept was placed on the Policy Council agenda by Housing minister Dave Jones, but discussion swiftly moved to the machinery of government and now the future of that will be discussed with the signs looking strong for a fuller review of some kind which would form the basis for any change to scrutiny.

The Public Accounts Committee gets accused of simply being a post box, but it has been effective in putting the microscope on high profile issues including the clinical block saga, Social Security's IT system and now the less easy to digest corporate governance.

Its chairman, Leon Gallienne, is again expected to raise the need for an auditor-general to underpin the work it does.

What rankles more with some at the top of the States is it appears to be the fault of the Scrutiny Committee, which is responsible for casting a close eye on States policy with its nine political members and skeleton staff.

As ministers discussed the merger idea, one said that Scrutiny had underperformed.

'When they chose vandalism as the first thing to get their teeth into, we should have seen the writing was on the wall,' another quipped.

Scrutiny's chairman, Barry Brehaut, warns passionately against the merger idea, defending his corner as he did to the idea that those on the committee should not sit on a department.

Scrutiny was a new concept to the States in 2004, and both committees have worked hard to establish themselves since then.

It was somewhat abstract that it was established at all, given that the States at that time baulked at the idea of executive government – the committee is not exactly a natural fit with the consensus system but for public confidence that the States is doing the right thing everyone seems to agree that the process is vital.

In his letter to the chief minister, Deputy Jones said he wanted to express his continued concern over the present state of the two committees.

'I, together with others, believe that in the interests of both committees and the scrutiny process as a whole that these two committees should merge, giving them sufficient staff resources to carry out the important role of open transparent scrutiny. Thereby becoming more focused and effective in their scrutiny of the States and its departments,' he said.

'I have also long held the view that they should not be populated by members of the States, as this simply makes a mockery of the idea that they are somehow independent of the States whose actions and policies, both social and fiscal, they have a responsibility to monitor. I believe one single committee led by a strong, determined leader and possibly 10 suitable members of the Guernsey public would result in a much more robust scrutiny process and in turn a much better service to the taxpayers of this island.'

As finances get tighter, every aspect of the way the States works should be examined – even ensuring value for money is being delivered by the value for money body.

But it must be aimed at making things more effective, not weaker.

Deputy Brehaut said it should concern the public that the Housing minister had raised the issue of merging the two committees.

'Scrutiny has a clear mandate of which in part states, "assessing the performance of departments and committees in implementing policies and services". This role would clearly be diluted if the two committees were to merge,' he said.

'These are unprecedented times. Departments will for the first time be facing up to the possibility of a reduction in service delivery to the public. This is then, more than ever before, the very time that the public will need assurances through the respective bodies of Scrutiny and PAC that there has been full and thorough scrutiny of any proposals that will negatively impact on the service user.'

He remains opposed to diminishing the role of deputies in the process.

'While it is important to engage the public in the very business of government, it would be misplaced at this time. It is crucial, in fact fundamental, that those who will oversee any impending change in the implementation and delivery of policy, work from a knowledge base. In other words: you need to understand how a department works before you can contribute in an informed manner. As has been stated before Scrutiny operates with nine members to ensure that any conflict perceived or otherwise can be accommodated, so being on a department or another committee is a clear asset.'

He added that any saving achieved by reducing political members was 'tremendously short-sighted'.

'What you can never cost is an opportunity missed. My fear would be that the newly formed body could be swamped with work and not give time to those areas that would benefit from considered scrutiny to the detriment of the stakeholder, the client, the islander.'

In the face of questions about what the committee had achieved this term he said that the Scrutiny process should be virtually invisible, working with other departments and committees, improving service delivery and policy implementation.

But it is perhaps this silence that means the people question how effective the process is – the last public hearing was some years ago now. Could there be space for more, bring ministers and officials in for a grilling in the same way the UK Treasury's Select Committee so often does?

'Commerce and Employment and the Public Services Department have published reports at the request of Scrutiny that have better informed the public and demonstrated that working in an non adversarial way has a positive effect on outcomes. We are at the moment finalising our vandalism report, compiling our performance report for late May early June, working on a presentation/seminar "about scrutiny" to get a greater understanding of the scrutiny process amongst our political colleagues. We are also working on a scoping document for a review that will look at elements policy that fall within the mandates of HSSD, Education and Home. There are numerous elements of our future work streams that at this time clearly should remain confidential.'

But he is not completely opposed to change.

'Nothing should be set in stone and the current select committee arrangement must be fluid and adapt to change. But what in this case is the trigger or catalyst for change, it is unfortunately an assumed "quick win" you can put a literal cost on the scrutiny but the real cost of diminishing its role or prominence can't be so readily assessed.

'Members of the public should be very wary of ministers who, when they are facing some real difficult choices and challenges, look to shoot the messenger rather than allow him to convey the message of a critical friend.'