A Week in Politics

The occasion for this possibly phantom chat was the response by the Council of Ministers to the Economic Scrutiny Panel’s plans to review the depositor compensation scheme.

No, said Senators Philip Ozouf and Alan Maclean, praying anxiously that no one remembered their hustings declarations that the scheme was unnecessary. The scheme is important, they declared. It must come into force now. Not a moment can be lost.

Anyway, we know how this story ended: the law is being reviewed by the panel; proposed votes of no confidence in the panel have been quietly shelved, for now; and, as yet, the finance industry has not disappeared through want of £50,000-worth of insurance for bank accounts.

The point is this: as political statements go, the mass-resignation of Scrutiny panel chairmen would be a whisper, not a shout.

The good news is that the evidence this week, from two new Members of the States, is that there is a more positive outlook blossoming among the Scrutiny panels.

First, a sub-panel led by Deputy Montfort Tadier reported on the independent monitoring system at the Prison and came up with some reasonable, measured and sensible conclusions.

Instead of just having Jurats visiting the Prison to see the very people that they have sentenced, why not open it up? And while you’re at it, why not try more unannounced visits and more unaccompanied ones? Not earth-shattering, but helpful.

Secondly, Deputy Tracey Vallois suggested that rather than moan about ministers ignoring Scrutiny reports, the panels should follow up their reports and demand answers and actions.

She suggested that if ministers accept recommendations, they should say what they’re going to do about them and when, and if they reject them, they should be prepared to justify that.

All perfectly reasonable. The sort of thing, in fact, that you might have assumed was happening anyway.

None of this is to say that there aren’t still problems, the chief of which is pace.

It usually takes a Scrutiny panel around seven months to put together a report.

They agree terms of reference and panel composition, they call for evidence, they review submissions, they schedule hearings, they hold hearings, they draft a report, they send the draft out, they finalise the report.

In fairness, some of the reports get done a lot quicker, but by the time the report is out, issues have almost always moved on.

There’s a second problem: as long as some Members treat the Scrutiny budget as a chance to go through their election manifesto, ticking off pledges as they go, they’re going to have a lot of trouble sticking to the line that it’s evidence-based.

But the sub-panel report on the Prison Board of Visitors and Deputy Vallois’ proposals are a definite step in the right direction.

IT’S like a Holy Grail full of four-leafed clovers found at the end of a rainbow: reforming the States and saving money at the same time.

Deputy Trevor Pitman is the latest to stick some thoughts down, following on from the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Deputy Bob Hill and St Clement Constable Len Norman.

The twist this time is that it’s a Constable who is trying to unseat the Constables, but beyond that it’s the same old tried and tested bunch of ideas that didn’t work last time, or the time before that.

And yet, here they are again.

I would love to believe that any of the reform models will get through, really I would. But hope fades eternal.

Here’s what I’d like, a States Member who puts the twin goals of reform and efficiency above their own career. Because that would be dead easy, all they would have to do is quit.

SOME kind soul sent me an email exchange between Senators Stuart Syvret and Terry Le Main the other day, why I don’t know.

There’s pages of it, complete with all the stuff you’d expect. Accusations flying back and forth that the other one should be in prison, that they’re cowards, that they’re liars – the usual stuff.

Any argument between these two is a classic lose-lose situation, and I can’t help thinking that it makes me a massive loser too for even reading it, let alone admitting that I have.

In fact, it’s the best argument for government secrecy I’ve ever seen. If all of these sorts of exchanges were published, no-one would ever vote again.