ONE of the most dispiriting outcomes of the vote of no confidence in the Public Accounts Committee is that its chairman – who secured a comfortable victory – found it necessary to apologise three times to the Assembly and to tell it that ‘lessons had been learned’.

The whole point of governmental scrutiny is to hold those wielding executive powers to account but the body supposed to ensure taxpayer value  is now grovelling to those it is supposed to be challenging.

If anyone harboured doubts about the efficacy of the island’s scrutiny process, they will now have been reinforced. And what made an unedifying debate doubly depressing was seeing the chairman and a member of the Scrutiny Committee also dishing out a kicking to the PAC.

By doing so, they made it abundantly clear that they fundamentally misunderstand the role that watchdogs play and have exposed the charade that the committee can independently and fearlessly exercise its obligation to ensure government activity is of the highest quality.

This was, however, predictable. A warning was given in 2003 by the truly independent Audit Commission just as the States was busy dismantling it and loading up its successor with deputies. In 2009, the Wales Audit Office followed that up by declaring: ‘The States of Guernsey does not have effective systems of accountability and scrutiny in place.’

It added, ‘In most governmental systems there is a clear division between executive and scrutiny functions. Within the States of Guernsey such a distinction does not exist,’ and the debate was living proof of that.

What the no confidence supporters were trying to do was nail PAC for having the temerity to pursue the WAO report, which is deeply embarrassing for States members.

What the Scrutiny Committee chairman has demonstrated is his desire (and that of the rest of his team?) to be part of the same cosy club they are supposed to be holding to account.

The watchdog cannot be beholden to government, yet that is the situation here and is one of the reasons why Guernsey’s governance is so bad.

The real concern, however, is that so many States members want it that way.