The framework was the subject of Scrutiny’s first hearing of the year, chaired by its president Andy Sloan, with Deputy Gavin St Pier and chief resources officer Bethan Haines representing P&R’s Public Accounts sub-committee.
After a two-hour hearing Deputy Sloan said that none of what he had heard from the P&R representatives had done anything to alleviate his and the committee’s concerns about the changes made to the framework.
‘I think our concerns were borne out today in that we’re moving from a rules-based regime to a principles-based regime, where everything is qualitative and subjective,’ he said.
‘None of the answers to our questions have given me any greater confidence of what those principles mean in practice.’
As well as the general principles of the framework, he closely questioned the meaning of certain terms in the document, which is due to be debated by the States later this month.
In response to another question, Mrs Haines said that the framework review was needed because of a revision to the Gross Domestic Product, and several metrics in the former version were linked to GDP, and also the States’ move to adopt international public sector accounting standards. That led to some of the definitions and terminology changing, so the framework needed to be looked at.
That led to several questions about some of these terms and definitions, which included Deputy Sloan asking why there had been an apparent change from the framework’s core focus being that the island’s fiscal policy should operate on a principle of long-term permanent balance to one of long-term financially stability.
Mrs Haines said that this was basically the same thing but she was unable to point to where this point was made in the document.
The P&R representatives were later asked to explain what use the framework had been over the years.
Deputy St Pier said he could not think of any occasions where its existence had impacted on States’ decisions and the main driver for the States to control expenditure had been determined by the public’s expectations of services and their willingness to pay for them.
Panel member and former chief minister Peter Harwood suggested that the public could not draw much comfort from the lack of a ceiling in the framework.
‘There is an argument that this document is pretty useless, isn’t it?’ said panel member Mark Le Page, another non-States member of the committee.
‘Because if it’s not made reference to... this thing almost becomes wallpaper doesn’t it?’
But Deputy St Pier said that the framework was there to be used when documents such as the Budget were prepared for the States and as a background against which scrutiny, judgement and assessment – independent and by the States – could be carried out.
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.