Home Affairs needs to be brought in for questioning

The evidence from the HM Inspectorate review of Law Enforcement is firmly that it is not – and the consequences are stark.

Unfortunately, hearing some of the responses to the uncomfortable messages from a review it triggered itself, the unsettling truth is that the committee probably will not change.

The resounding vision is of a finger in each ear and a can being kicked off into the distance.

This review was damning of the way the committee was acting, of a lack of strategic direction and vision, while wasting time getting bogged down in the minutiae of things like flashing bike lights.

Compounding this further is the feeling among Law Enforcement staff that the politicians are getting involved in operational matters, trying to direct enforcement action, and that is a line that simply should not be crossed.

The Scrutiny Management Committee is right that Home Affairs needs to, excuse the pun, be brought in for questioning.

While there were positives in the review, when there was criticism a straight line can be traced back to the political side, whether it is this board or its predecessor.

Shortcomings in ICT were a recurring theme, with the provision described as among the worst that has been seen.

‘We found computer terminals, network systems and databases that were old, fragile and prone to crashing. System functionality, network storage capacity, processing power, reliability and stability, integration, security and mobile technology capability were all matters of substantial concern,’ the inspectors said.

Why has the investment not happened as necessary? A lack of strategy.

The committee had at the time of the review not carried out medium-term financial planning, there was no clarity to where money should be spent and what would be available.

This lack of political direction feeds on further.

Law Enforcement does not find out how much money it will have for staffing until too late, recruitment decisions are delayed and staff suffer.

Money is wasted on overtime. People are unhappy.

But the board is intent on spending time finding out why a wing mirror has been left in the road.

Then take the condition of the buildings that Law Enforcement is using, in particular the custody facilities.

There is no estates strategy for Law Enforcement.

Money spent on maintenance was cut back in an expectation that new premises would be coming.

Detainees in the custody facilities are at risk – two independent inspections identified that in 2010 and 2014.

Improvements have stalled – facilities that were identified as being unsafe remain unsafe eight years later.

Why is there no estates strategy?

It is because the committee does not, according to the inspectors, know what the strategic objectives for Law Enforcement are.

It is, however, happy to use committee meeting time to discuss complaints about a parking ticket.

‘The minutes we read did not describe strategy, for example concerning custody estate. They did not consider the ‘service delivery priorities’.

‘They also did not provide a shared or joined-up approach across the services the committee is responsible for.’

And that is the message from what Home Affairs allowed the inspectors to see, the redacted minutes.

‘We were unable to examine the process of meetings and understand the reasons for decisions, or the decisions that were made. In addition, apart from a recently published strategy on cyber-crime, we were unable to find any strategic direction by the committee concerning the future requirements for the structure of Bailiwick law enforcement for the middle to long term.’

The report highlights how the deputies feel they are not being listened to, but casts serious doubt on whether that is the reality.

‘The committee provided examples of where they had engaged with senior officers and been left feeling that their views had not been acknowledged, or information the committee required for scrutiny purposes had not been forthcoming, or action had not been taken. However, the minutes we read do not appear to support that view.’

It should not be forgotten that this is the same committee that has to be given an extra £300,000 next year because of a continued failure to deliver expected savings.

Its 2018 overspend is anticipated to be £450,000.

Feet have been severely dragged on taking forward nearly £1m. of savings opportunities identified by staff to consultants.

There is a tendency for committees, not just Home Affairs, to talk a good game but whenever anyone from the outside dives into what really is happening an uncomfortable picture emerges.

We know Home Affairs is not alone among the political boards in working in areas that they should not be.

Warnings about a lack of progress on priority areas outlined in the Policy and Resource plan came with an argument that boards were drifting off into non-priority areas.

Discipline is lacking, and its a problem that has afflicted previous assemblies too, according to the picture spelled out in successive governance reviews.

But this is perhaps the first time that the concrete consequences of that behaviour has been laid out clearly.

The first step to addressing this is recognising there is a problem in the first place.