Why all the slings and arrows?

Imagine, the new committee probably met and, but for one member, had probably little experience in overseeing a law enforcement mandate. Some ‘bright spark’ probably suggested that a bit of help was needed to identify problem areas and educate them in how to get things in order. Really? Just where do we find these deputies?

Quite sensibly, for 10 years the previous committees had avoided inspection and kept their heads well below the parapet. Best not to wash your dirty laundry in public are wise words, especially for politicians. But this lot in their naivety, and with some misconceived belief in openness and transparency, invited in people who they thought could help improve law enforcement in this island.

And to top it all they even, no really, asked the inspectors to inspect their own processes. I’m sorry if you are reading this while drinking a cup of tea and I have made you snort it all over the table. What plonkers? No wonder Deputy Roffey has taken them to task for their attempt to do their job better.

The poor devils probably don’t come from a regulated background like finance, where a whole industry exists to make ‘regulatory’ inspections as painless as possible. It is vitally important to know your regulator and what inspectors will be looking for. If the word on the street is that they focus on procedures, then you write new procedures. If they test that all worksheets are signed you immediately redesign worksheets not to require a signature. And so on and so forth.

Clearly a few hours on the internet would have highlighted that strategy, governance, IT and the ‘English Way’ would be key to obtaining political plaudits in the report. A few further hours knocking up some meaningless mission statement could’ve made all the difference, as well as purging any reference to Guernsey politicians being so open to concerns from the people, as is our way.

It appears obvious to me that, like lambs to the slaughter, our Home Affairs took no preparatory action to ensure a clean report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate. They probably imagined that a warts-and-all report is exactly what they needed to help them identify the way forward. Instead of seeking confirmation of their excellent political oversight skills, they in their childlike and trusting way thought a truly independent inspection is exactly what was needed.

One of the great concerns of the board of organisations being inspected is that an inspector will latch onto the greatest Jeremiah in the business, who will weep and wail as they open their heart to all the problems caused by ‘the bosses’. Again, in the real world companies have been known to employ ‘consultants’ to coach staff in how to deal with inspectors.

Seemingly this assistance is for the benefit of staff, but the message is often that staff are being observed, recorded and retribution may follow if they mess up. And wherever possible staff with grudges who have decided to leave the organisation (possibly for a cosy billet elsewhere) are kept far away from the inspectors.

Our Home Affairs committee, the poor wide-eyed souls, probably didn’t even think of this course of action. In fact, from comments made it would appear that the imminent departure of the chief of law enforcement was a big driver in commissioning the inspection to ensure all possible problems could be identified.

One of the first tips I was given to confound regulatory inspections was to load them down with paperwork to review. Load the tables in the boardroom with so much ‘stuff’ that they bow in the middle. Swamp the inspectors with thousands of pages of trivia to review, having spent hours ensuring everything that should be signed was signed and that strategy, governance and compliance manuals ran to many hundreds of pages.

The poor, innocent political members of Home Affairs, totally unaware of any tricks to ensure a good report, actually avoided giving the inspectorate any information that wasn’t relevant to law enforcement. They actually spent time making the inspectors’ job easier, giving them time to focus on the actual deficiencies Home wanted to be identified.

So where are we now?

We have a Committee for Home Affairs much better placed to bring law enforcement and its political oversight up to date. Or at least to an English standard. A standard which doesn’t seem to give better results than ours but, hey, ho, we all know that English experts know best.

Home Affairs has conclusive proof of under-investment in computer systems which will make it much easier to negotiate for more money from Deputy St Pier.

The incoming chief of law enforcement has a report which identifies the main issues that have been left to be completed by his predecessor.

It seems to me that in some cock-eyed way the decision by Home to commission the first inspection for 10 years has turned out to be a very good decision. And Home’s determination that it would be all-encompassing to identify the tasks that lay ahead and not to simply endorse a great set of results is surely a worthwhile outcome?

So why are certain people calling for their resignation?

It makes no sense to me at all. By sitting on their hands and basking in the glow of a ‘successful by results’ law enforcement regime, Home could’ve just sailed through to 2020 and left the next lot to carry the can.

But no, they want to do their job and need the tools to do it. Commissioning the inspection was in my view a politically brave decision and the right thing to do. We certainly know now that not all is hunky dory in law enforcement and there is some hint of friction between the politicians and the chief.

But that’s what Home needed to know and took action to identify the issues. Now I suggest it’s time to back them to sort it out. But hopefully not by going the ‘Full English’ way.