Worrying ‘lack of governance’ at Home Affairs
REGARDING the recently published Home department report, I am greatly troubled by the lack of governance highlighted and the indifference it seems to have been greeted with. Deputies have historically had difficulty understanding their roles on this committee. To this end, a law enforcement commission was previously proposed to address this issue and establish independence from political interference in law enforcement. Fundamental to this was the concept that the law should be enforced ‘without fear or favour’. The LEC was not created due to costs and a now, evidently wrong presumption, that the members could manage that governance and avoid political interference.
The members of the committee already have very privileged access to the heads of law enforcement due to their positions, they do not and should not believe they have any power on operational matters, they certainly should not operate as some higher power in the eyes of others. However, that privilege may have been abused by individual members pursuing, at the boardroom table, personal agendas or matters on behalf of third parties, with the intent for an individual to become subject to prosecution. In my view this is an abuse of power and does not pass the law being applied ‘without fear or favour’ test.
On operational matters, the escalation routes available to members of the committee should be no different to those of any other member of the government or the public. At any time, they can contact the relevant agencies on operational matters and ask questions or make complaints. One would have to consider that, if a member can bring up minor operational matters at the board table with no sanctions by fellow members, that reflects on all the members.
Worse still, what personal agendas might they pursue in one-to-one contacts with the heads of law enforcement? Especially given the precedent set at the boardroom table? That same complacency that is evident at the board table appears to prevail with States members, as no serious questions have been asked on this and the wider report.
It would be wrong to underestimate the strength of the dilemmas that the head of law enforcement faces when members of the Home department pursue operational matters, be they personal, on behalf of constituents or associations. Operational matters put forward by members get a high very priority in the agencies, not in proportion and to the detriment of competing priorities. The head of law enforcement needs the support of the board and not fulfilling these requests would make his or her job more difficult when seeking support from the board on other matters.
It seems to me that in the absence of a LEC, serving members of the committee should be prevented from pursuing operational issues and leave this to States members not serving on the committee, or some register needs to be kept that can be inspected by an independent body.
It would also be worth getting further information on the nature of the redacted sections of the minutes that were thought unsuitable for the inspectors to see, hardly transparent. In my opinion the governance standards of this department need some very close scrutiny.
Name and address withheld.
Deputy Mary Lowe, president of the Committee for Home Affairs, responds: The committee under its mandate does have ‘oversight’ for issues of quality of service and we also have a duty to pass on representations we receive. This is not giving any direction but rather is us feeding in concerns or comments. It is for law enforcement to determine what if any action is taken on representations. The report makes some very sensible recommendations which can help improve this process and the committee is absolutely committed to deliver on that. The committee was extremely pleased the report found the Bailiwick of Guernsey was ‘very well served’ by Law Enforcement. This independent report said there was much to be proud of and that it was impressed by many areas of work it reviewed.
The committee takes its responsibilities to Law Enforcement and its governance extremely seriously. It is committed to progressing the recommendations made. The HMIC had all the minutes relating to Law Enforcement, the redactions covered other areas of Home Affairs and would have been inappropriate to send.
I also think it is important to note HMI Matt Parr’s comments when being interviewed about the report by the BBC, in which he praised our committee’s governance of law enforcement, adding there’s got to be oversight and the Home Affairs committee does just that.