Guernsey Press

We need answers

What to do about the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary report on law enforcement in Guernsey?

Published
(23198954)

It seems the answer of most of my colleagues is ‘nothing’.

Indeed one of them effectively told me to ‘get off of Home Affairs’ case’. He misses the point. This is not about which politicians sit on the Home Affairs committee. It is certainly not about how much we like or respect them.

Rather it is about how we, the States, go about exercising political oversight of Guernsey’s police and border agency. After all as public services go, few come close to being so crucial.

In my time as a deputy I have seen many critical reports of States’ services. These can be incredibly useful.

Sometimes we may dispute elements of the findings of such external reviews, but by and large they prove to be a pivotal tool to aid improvement. Guernsey is an isolated community and so an outside pair of eyes can often be of great help. So what makes this report different?

In my lengthy States experience I have never seen a report which was so specifically critical of a political committee of the States rather than simply the services it oversees. I think I would even include the Mulkerrin report on education in that assessment. Having read it I was forced to one of two conclusions. Either this £75,000 appraisal by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary was hugely unfair and jaundiced, or else we needed a radical change in both the culture and the way of operating at Home Affairs.

Natural justice means one shouldn’t jump to conclusions over which of these alternatives is the case, although if the HMIC report is indeed riddled with errors it would have been really useful if Home Affairs could have said so when they first launched the report on the seas of public opinion.

Either way the States as a whole need to get to the bottom of the situation and hold someone to account. That could be Home Affairs or the authors of this expensive review or both but one thing is certain: this is not the sort of report you can read cover to cover and then just move on as if nothing remarkable has happened.

HMIC accuses members of Home Affairs of interfering with enforcement decisions in individual cases. Or, to be precise, they say that senior officers within law enforcement claim that this has happened. Home Affairs deny it. We really need to know who is right.

HMIC accuses the committee of completely failing to set any high level strategy for the future of Guernsey law enforcement. Home Affairs says nonsense. Again we need to bottom out the truth.

HMIC is clearly horrified by what they regard as the ‘ambushing’ of the head of law enforcement when a complainant appeared at a committee meeting leading to a face-to-face encounter without due warning. Home Affairs say they have got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick.

HMIC found a committee which could provide no strategic guidance on the issue of whether Guernsey’s Police and border agency would integrate further, possibly realising significant savings. Home Affairs are now very clear indeed – this isn’t going to happen. Why did the inspectors miss this seemingly settled policy and the chance to comment on it?

I could go on and on, but I won’t. The picture is one of Home Affairs and HMIC both looking at Guernsey law enforcement and seeing something completely different. It is clearly impossible for other deputies to know how to respond without first bottoming out the facts of the matter.

In this respect the forthcoming Scrutiny review will be very useful, but limited. The typical 90-minute grilling of a president and chief secretary is unlikely to reach a settled and undisputed version of the truth. Perhaps if Scrutiny were also to question all of the witnesses to the HMIC review – such as senior law enforcement officers – and the report’s authors we might get closer to a definitive understanding.

What else can be done?

When I first read the report I suggested two courses of action.

The first was a States debate. I suppose that is the first instinct of any parliamentarian and I do think it could serve a purpose, but I accept that it is not the main answer. Members are not experts in either law enforcement or governance and I suspect we would walk out of the chamber with many questions unanswered. That is no reason not to do it, but just a realisation that it wouldn’t bring complete clarity or closure.

My other suggestion was a rapid follow-up report by HMIC. By contrast to deputies, they are leading experts in both law enforcement and the governance thereof. Nor should it require another costly, full blown, review. The leg work has been done. The inspectors are familiar with the situation on the ground. Only they know exactly why they reached the conclusions they did in their now much challenged report. If it costs another £25,000 to get comfort, or otherwise, that law enforcement is being properly overseen in Guernsey then that must be a price worth paying.