A question of trust
I was recently asked why the States seems to be held in such low regard at the moment; let’s consider two examples which I think contributes to this view.
The first is an amendment by Deputies Gavin St Pier and Lyndon Trott against the report from Scrutiny requesting funding for an independent tribunal.
A quick recap:
1. An ex-employee revealed serious concerns regarding the recruitment of the head of curriculum.
2. Lots of adverse public interest.
3. September: Scrutiny asked for funds to hold an independent tribunal into the matter.
4. The States rejected the request.
5. Scrutiny started their review.
6. Scrutiny claimed a lack of co-operation from Education.
7. Which brings us to Scrutiny’s current funding request.
Why an independent tribunal rather than a review?
A tribunal is like a court investigation – people have to attend, whether they are deputies, States employees or members of the public, documents have to be provided, and people answer questions under oath. Providing answers to a tribunal is a far more serious matter than an internal enquiry as misleading answers could result in a person being guilty of perjury.
The St Pier amendment throws out the request for funding, instead telling Scrutiny to do their own review.
The amendment surprised me because during the September debate he agreed with Deputy Emilie McSwiggen that Scrutiny should request funding if they were unsuccessful with their own review, finishing his speech saying: ‘… to go away and do the job, and if they find they cannot, for whatever reason, that is the time to come back to us’.
Yet he is leading an amendment rejecting the request he said they should make.
Deputy St Pier does refer to a new ordinance giving new powers to Scrutiny, but that law has not been approved – in fact, it is not yet scheduled for any States meeting. He is asking the States to accept his amendment on the hope that they then approve the new ordinance – another example of poor governance.
Even if/when the ordinance is approved, all it does is enable Scrutiny to apply to the court for it to order documents etc. be provided.
We can all guess what might happen – a ‘bun fight’ in court between Scrutiny asking for documents and Education trying not to provide them.
More costs, more delays.
Irrespective of whether or not the law is in place, this is an inappropriate amendment.
It is fundamental that Scrutiny should, and must, be able to operate independently, to decide for itself what it will investigate. To be told by the Assembly to do something, and when to report back, is really dreadful governance and Deputy St Pier should know better.
Replacing Scrutiny’s propositions with their own propositions has the same effect as voting against Scrutiny, but it is cleverer. Rather than asking deputies to reject Scrutiny’s propositions, replacing them would give deputies something positive to vote for. The record would show that deputies voted for the proposals, albeit they would not be Scrutiny’s proposals.
It may be clever, but it should be rejected and Scrutiny’s propositions approved – unamended. Only this way can we be sure the truth will come out and trust is restored in the recruitment process.
The second subject is, you guessed it – Education, and their new report to the States. If you missed it, their intention is to take a report to the States asking to clarify aspects of the requete.
They suggest they need the States to limit the scope of the investigation or they will have to review options the States has no serious intention of taking forward – such as creating middle schools for the 11-14 age range.
What total and utter rubbish.
Former Bailiff Sir Geoffrey Rowland often noted that States resolutions are not laws – they do not carry the force of a law and it is a matter of political judgement for a committee to decide the degree to which they follow resolutions.
If the committee has doubts, it should use the debate as a guide to the mood of the Assembly and make a political decision regarding what to include.
I cannot recall any deputy suggesting the creation of schools for 11-14 year-olds. It is within the authority of Education to exclude such schools, knowing that no deputies wanted them.
To suggest they would have to include them in the review is wrong and plain scaremongering.
Likewise, they can include three 11-18 schools even though the option was not specifically included. After all, isn’t that similar to what Deputy Fallaize did with the multi-option referendum?
The integration of the three higher education institutes is the same – the majority of deputies, if not all, agreed that that process should continue. Education can continue on that basis, excluding options which would impact on the Institute.
Even if this Assembly were to pass a resolution specifically excluding higher education, it will not protect the Institute because this Assembly cannot bind the next one.
There are 12 propositions, some far-reaching, so this will take more than a day to debate, when the States already has 40 reports to debate in its final four meetings.
Education is free to make all of these decisions, based on political judgement – returning to the States with this report is not necessary. So why do it?
Perhaps the answer relates to the vote of confidence. Quite clever, because they are certain to win it. The requete won by one vote, and Deputy Lester Queripel has given them his support, so the numbers are on their side, and the Assembly is unlikely to remove anybody this close to an election.
Perhaps there may be more to it. Perhaps what they are doing is less about clarification and more about justifying remaining in office? Perhaps being on the interview panel for the Director of Education is important?
Or perhaps it is the perfect opportunity for somebody to place an amendment reversing the decision to support the requete? Perhaps somebody is already planning to do just that?
Finally, to answer the question posed at the start: it is antics like these which lowers the reputation of the States.
