Lack of cross-departmental working has cost millions

AH, government reform, so beloved of politicians, of so little interest to most of those outside that world.

We should not, of course, underestimate the importance of getting the right system in place.

What we have now does not work.

That much is clear.

This model has been incapable of consistently delivering major policy directions – just think government business plan, strategic asset management and the like – and has also failed to break down those departmental silos.

That last point was laid bare in the final report on the Financial Transformation Programme, which spelt out that inability for cross-departmental working has cost, and continues to cost, taxpayers millions of pounds.

There is a very real bill for bad government.

The reforms voted through the States with barely a whimper of opposition last week look like a large step in the right direction, on paper at least.

They will need to be.

Get it wrong again and that is the death of the consensus model.

Get it wrong again and that will open up even more of a gap between the ruling classes and the electorate.

Next term there will be a cut in deputies to 38 – so it is a States of 40 with the two Alderney representatives.

Gone is the cumbersome talking shop that is the Policy Council, to be replaced as the main committee by Policy and Resources.

This body will be populated by five politicians, including the de facto leader of the States, who will have no other committee roles, instead concentrating on major policies that will guide all the other work that follows.

It will be a powerful body, with control of the purse strings too.

The first challenge of the new States, no doubt full of the excitement of being the next agents of change, will be to populate it with the right calibre of people, and just as importantly the right balance.

Get this wrong and the tone is set badly for the rest of the administration – queue some bad golf analogies with above PaR and below PaR performances.

Beneath P&R sit the six principal committees responsible for the major areas of government such as education, health, the environment and home affairs.

Then there is the scrutiny function – another area that the 2004 reforms got so wrong.

Back then members hashed up a mongrel system of government, managing to create a scrutiny function and then not giving it any resources or powers.

It was scrutiny in name, but not in action, seen as an afterthought in each administration despite what anyone said, and something of an inconvenience.

Those who sat on the three committees did so with all the right intentions, but because of the design failed to make the kind of impact they should.

There was an important amendment to the report last week which was uncontentious but could prove absolutely vital.

Led by Deputy Heidi Soulsby, it means that this States will decide on what powers the new Scrutiny Management Committee will have.

The SRC wanted to leave it in the hands of the next administration.

That would have been a mistake, because it is a can that has already been long kicked down the road.

Leaving this work would have sent it into 2017 or beyond, tying the hands of the new body and leaving the administration free and unchallenged from the watchful eye it should be under from the start.

Later in the same debate last week there was a very clear idea of just what the new powers will entail, if the States agrees.

Current Scrutiny and Legislation Committee chair Rob Jones outlined areas including the power to compel witnesses to give evidence, being able to force the release of existing documents and being able to review the extended arms of government, those bodies such as Guernsey Post, the competition regulator or Aurigny, that are in receipt of public funds but because they are non-political cannot be touched, at the moment.

He also raised the prospect of being able to release confidential documentation in limited circumstances, something that would open the door to proper scrutiny of the legal advice offered by the law officers.

These would all be important powers for the scrutiny function to work properly, but would equally come to nowt should the funding and resources not be put in place.

Too often politicians speak in warm tones of the importance of scrutiny, then fail to back that up, perhaps fearful of what it might mean in reality to their closeted, decision-making world.

Even simple things can tie the current committees, such as not having a room to hold a snap hearing in or anyone to transcribe it even if they did.

The tale of Public Accounts Committee having to go with a begging bowl to fund a review – to the very department it wanted to look into, is a very embarrassing sign of just how the States treats any type of scrutiny.

It is not all over yet for these reforms, although the main structure is in place there is haggling to be done on the detailed mandates.

There is also the not-insignificant task of allocating the right number of seats to each electoral district.

Already there are indications that this will be a very parochial affair as deputies fight to keep their current level of representation or, in relative terms, increase it.