THE Policy Council’s issues with debating the highly critical Wales Audit Office report on the island’s system of government were down to timing, not principle, according to the Treasury minister.
Deputy Charles Parkinson (pictured) gave his assurance that some of the concerns the WAO expressed were already being dealt with and said he considered it better to wait a few months.
‘It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to debate it in the spring, once the current programme of reform has been completed,’ he said.
‘The States answered some of the criticisms of the WAO report on good governance when they approved the States Strategic Plan this month.’
That would set out the corporate objectives of the States, he said, and provide the means for deputies and the public to see whether States departments were playing their part in delivering those objectives.
At the same meeting, the States approved the Corporate Property Plan.
‘Further progress will be made at the end of this month, when the States will be asked to introduce internal regulation in the key areas of finance, procurement and IT,’ said Deputy Parkinson.
The responsibility for bringing a report on the WAO’s findings to the States now lies with the Public Accounts Committee.
It had taken the report to Policy Council in September but the latter was reluctant to take immediate action.
That led to PAC chairman Leon Gallienne announcing he would attempt to amend the strategic plan to get the report debated.
However, he withdrew that after receiving correspondence from Policy Council saying the PAC could go ahead as it wished.
Deputy Parkinson said he considered the PAC the right body for the job.
‘While it is clear that any proposals to modify the machinery of government would have to be developed and brought to the Assembly by Policy Council, I believe the WAO report should be debated separately, as a preliminary step, to test opinion on whether further reform is considered necessary in the light of the progress already being made.’
Deputy Matt Fallaize sought to clarify the fact that Policy Council had technically not instructed PAC to do anything in respect of the WAO report.
‘Leon Gallienne may have claimed otherwise in the States, but he was misinformed or speaking carelessly,’ he said. ‘Immediately after the Gallienne amendment was withdrawn, Deputy Chief Minister Bernard Flouquet raised a point of order and advised the States that PAC was under no instruction and that whatever it chose to do or not do with the WAO report was a matter for PAC.’
He did not think the Policy Council had performed a U-turn, especially as the WAO report was not yet in a form that could be debated because it contained no recommendations.
‘I have absolutely no idea how PAC will choose to take it forward. There must be a case for appending recommendations to the WAO Report, specifically to improve corporate governance within Guernsey’s system of consensus government.’
He said he would have been strongly opposed to the Gallienne amendment because it could have created another revamp of the States similar to the Harwood report that brought changes to the machinery of government. ‘I remain categorically opposed to cabinet government.’
Men with the power
Pages 4 & 5
Politics Page 15
Article posted on 9th November, 2009 - 2.29pm
5 Article Comments
…so this sudden, detailed ‘revisionist’ explanation of the Policy Council’s inexcusable ‘Council says narrr’ previous response, with absolutely NO proper reasons, comes hot on the heels of the public outcry about their intention to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it….hmmm.
Is it coincidence? Perhaps the realisation that perhaps they SHOULD be acting in the best interests of the people they’re supposed to represent, instead of getting precious about some well placed, much needed criticism from a body that THEY commissioned?
….or perhaps just the belated recognition that they need the votes of their critics to keep their jobs?
Seriously, if our States was a commercial concern, none of these politicians would have a job, and most would be considered unemployable.
Report abuse
Scarlett,
I have many faults, but blind loyalty to the Policy Council is usually not one of them. However, on this occasion perhaps your criticism of them is a bit harsh.
You say that the Policy Council commissioned the WAO report on corporate governance. They did not. It was commissioned by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee is one of the scrutiny committees which were established in 2004. They are independent from the executive/decision-making arms of the States.
Consequently, the Public Accounts Committee is perfectly entitled to make recommendations, or invite the WAO to make recommendations, arising out of its report without seeking the approval or permission of the Policy Council.
I am not a member of the Committee or the Council, but my understanding is that the position of the latter has been quite consistent in expressing the view that many of the WAO’s observations could be addressed by current initiatives [such as the spending review and strategic plan], and that what to do with the WAO report was a matter for those who commissioned it, i.e. PAC.
Opinion will differ about Policy Council’s stance, but I don’t think it can be accused of having undertaken a u-turn.
Report abuse
Matt. Thank you for your detailed and considered response, which is informative and well balanced, as always.
I appreciate what you’re saying, however, this report was commissioned by essentially what is a States Committee, and challenged by another part of that same organisation.
– it’s rather like saying if I am left handed (right hand brain dominant) then my right hand/left brain cannot be linked to or held responsible for what my left hand does-!
This disjointed thinking and total lack of coordination and communication by two elements of the same governing body (at considerable cost) is a classic example of why the Policy Council is now being forced to face the proverbial music and address the many issues that have gone on unchecked for years, not in it’s own good time, as they have tried to dictate – (how much longer do they need, exactly?!) – but NOW.
Report abuse
Scarlett,
I have to accept that you have a good point about the Policy Council and the Public Accounts Committee being part of the same organisation.
Reflecting on the events that have followed the publication of the WAO report, I’m not sure that matters have been handled terribly well by either the Council or the Committee. Therein lies the central point you are making, perhaps.
One thing that should be remembered, however, is that the Public Accounts Committee is a scrutiny/parliamentary committee, necessarily one removed from the executive arms of government [including Policy Council].
Although criticism of government not being sufficiently cohesive and ‘joined-up’ is often very fair, it would be very unhealthy for a scrutiny committee such as PAC to be constantly singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were, as the Policy Council. A certain degree of tension and confrontation within government is inevitable and healthy to keep democracy functioning adequately.
Report abuse
Thanks again for that, Matt, I hear what you’re saying.
Look forward to seeing events unfold over the coming months!
Report abuse