Spending scrutiny should extend to States partners

AMID the bombardment of new policy announcements volleyed out by the States at the end of last week was a message of a body that will be increasingly reliant on the goodwill of the community to get its job done.

To an extent it has always been thus, but that has only been exaggerated in recent times as government finances come under increasing pressure and it looks to carry on providing services that taxpayers expect.

The danger, of course, is that voluntary and community groups begin to bear the brunt while the States is disincentivised from searching for savings and efficiencies.

There is a point at which taxpayers are entitled to say we are paying for the government to do a job, so why is it us turning up with forks and hedgecutters to make the island look like it should, or holding fundraising events to get children health care?

No doubt those within the walls of Frossard House and their political masters will be acutely aware of those dangers, but the temptation to go down the path of least resistance is always high.

There is certainly a wealth of goodwill and skills outside the narrow bounds of the States, which it is right to tap into as long as the correct safeguards are in place.

There is a hint of irony in that those who back partnering with the 'third sector' to get the job done would baulk at deals with the private sector because it somehow has dirtier connotations.

Health and social care is looking like being the pioneer of this new way of thinking – with the biggest budget of the States and the challenges of the changing demographic weighing heavily on its services, that it is no surprise.

With this new partnership approach, though, will have to come more scrutiny and things like tougher service-level agreements. Just because a voluntary organisation does uplifting and fulfilling work does not always mean it is doing so effectively and efficiently.

The States will have to choose its partners carefully and those partners should be willing to be open to the same level of questioning that a government body should.

At the moment it is too easy for taxpayers' money to be paid to organisations that do not, for example, publish public accounts or annual reports or use the kind of evidence base for making decisions that should be expected.

The warnings are already there with what happened in the UK with the collapse of the Kids Company charity, which took millions in government help despite the advice of civil servants – for politicians, it is easier to back popular causes than to make hard-hearted decisions.

Today the Scrutiny and Public Accounts Committee has published its report into what powers its successor should have in the new States.

There is an element within it that goes hand in hand with the new way of delivering some services.

Its report says that in 2012, more than £30m. went into providing States grants and subsidies to other bodies.

That figure is only ever going to be on the up.

'The reviews undertaken by the current committees have highlighted the problem that agencies and organisations essential to the delivery of government policy or services are beyond the current committees' ability to review,' the report committee's Billet report states.

'As a consequence, democratic oversight is curtailed.'

Treasury has raised an objection to this element on financial grounds: 'It is not possible to determine the impact of extending the scope of parliamentary scrutiny to all bodies in receipt of public funding.'

T&R's stance to everything that involves spending money at the moment is to kick the can down the road to the next States and the new Policy and Resources Committee.

It wants a proper prioritisation process – not ad hoc bids coming in as the States agenda gets fuller and fuller as the term ends.

There is a danger of this just piling more and more issues up for others to deal with.

The new structure of government needs to be in place and ready to function – it also needs to be able to commit to proper scrutiny, which itself will lead to discipline and savings, not just pay lip service to it.

We have entered that period of the States term when reports pile up upon reports as policies that have been lovingly and laboriously crafted suddenly need to get in before the deadline.

It is a dangerous time, because important decisions are rushed, seemingly innocuous votes have big consequences or time is simply wasted with non-decisions, or at least half-decisions with a 'we'll sort the loose ends out later'.

There is no doubt that fundamental change is on the agenda in the coming months – the skill will be in understanding what the totality of it all means and if the necessary checks and balances are in place.

In the depths of the domestic abuse strategy, the ageing well strategy or in the young people's plan are all sorts of signs of government commissioning more outside agencies to do work on its behalf.

It is not right that the scrutiny of public spending hits a wall as soon as money goes outside of government.