‘Could go horribly wrong’

I can’t speak for all other deputies, but can say what my view is from the perspective of being president of the largest committee of the States of Guernsey and as a former chair of the Public Accounts Committee. What I hope it will demonstrate is that some of us are not resistant to change, but that certain proposals do need to be reviewed and refined.

Firstly, I fully support the chief executive’s desire to reduce the number of senior posts in the civil service. This is something that HSC has managed to do in the last few years and I am glad that the chief executive is wanting to extend this across the States of Guernsey. However, aside from cutting services, a substantial reduction in posts will only happen from automation – and there’s the rub. Due to years of chronic underinvestment, for which much blame should be placed on the FTP, hundreds of millions of pounds need to be spent on ICT in the next 10 years. We recently heard about Law Enforcement’s systems being the worst HM Inspectorate had ever seen. HSC’s network is on its knees and its main computer system urgently needs upgrading if we are to be able to fundamentally transform to the next level. The same is true across the States.

Consequently, the creation of a head of delivery and support (I think people would better understand this as a chief operating officer) makes total sense to me. However, it will require someone of great skill, intelligence and diplomacy to make it a success. It’s not just ICT that needs wholesale modernisation, but HR, finance and procurement that will all fall under this person’s responsibilities. That is a big role, and if layers of staff are to be reduced underneath them, it will be bigger still. I speak as someone who has been a COO and knows what a challenging role it can be.

If the chief executive doesn’t choose the right person, things could go horribly wrong.

Now, the rules of procedure are something that States members love debating, as was seen only last month. However, aside from those that deal with mundane things like how long lunchtimes should be and whether we should be expected to actually say ‘give way’ when we want someone to give way, they also include quite fundamental rules that deal with the relationship between the civil service and political committees. One of the most important of these is Rule 56(3) that states, ‘the senior officers of a Committee are accountable to that Committee in respect of policy direction’.

As committee members we are rightly told that we should not get embroiled in operational matters and focus on policy development and direction. Certainly, that is the approach taken at HSC, which has enabled us to focus on making significant strategic advances. However, the plans as they are currently proposed are not aligned to this separation of roles. We understand that we will have a civil servant who will report directly to us on operational matters, but that we will have to share a ‘strategic lead’ amongst three other committees when it comes to policy. In our case, it will primarily be the ‘head of people policies’, who will be responsible for all policies from not only Health & Social Care, but also Employment & Social Security and Education, Sport & Culture. That is a big job (Partnership of Purpose, Disability & Inclusion, SLAWS, CYPP, Education Law, to name just a few) and it is unclear how that person will be able to manage the various demands and priorities of each committee. More critically, having regard to Rule 56(3), to whom will they be accountable?

It is these and similar concerns that have been articulated very well by former deputy Peter Gillson in his recent column and which I would advise those interested in getting beyond the ‘reduce the silos and cut the fat’ headlines to read.

And on the issue of silos, this term it has been possible to make the advances we have only through joint working with other committees, most notably Employment & Social Security. To suggest that any criticism of the plans, or need for change for that matter, is because of a silo mentality across all principal committees is an insult to those senior officers who have shown leadership and strength of character to make very difficult decisions and spearhead transformation these last 30 months.

So, where do we go from here? What we don’t want is the States Assembly determining the structure of the civil service. That is rightly the domain of the chief executive. It took a decade getting an agreed population management regime in place, by which time it was past its sell-by date. I can’t imagine what we’d end up with should every politician start getting involved in how the civil service is run. However, what is needed, and arguably should have happened at the outset, is that any restructuring is carried out in liaison with the relevant committees having regarded to the depth and breadth of their mandates, the challenges they currently face and where they are on their transformational journey. I don’t think that’s too much to ask and, you never know, it might help get rid of those silos, wherever they exist.