To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Will new panels pass scrutiny?
Share this:
It also now has a new set of Scrutiny panels whose chairmen bear only limited relationship, in political terms, to those who held the jobs in the previous administration.
Broad categorisation can be dangerous, but before the autumn’s elections Scrutiny was something of a stronghold of the fiercest opponents of the executive. Indeed, certain Scrutiny panels came under fire for setting themselves up as agents of opposition rather than the ‘critical friends’ that they were intended to be in the light of the Clothier reforms.
It would be entirely wrong to suggest that the new line-up of Scrutiny chairmen will amount to a selection of yes-man and yes-women. The track records of the experienced politicians among them give the lie to that idea. However, it is surely significant that figures such as Deputy Geoff Southern and Deputy Trevor Pitman do not feature among the newly elected Scrutiny leadership.
It is also significant that, initially at least, no one at all was willing to put their name forward to chair the Health, Social Security and Housing panel, and that two of the new chairmen have only just been elected to the States.
It is tempting to speculate that those who were the most ardent critics of the previous Council of Ministers have made the tactical decision to focus their efforts elsewhere rather than depending on Scrutiny to promote their alternative perspective.
More probably, the new distribution of jobs reflects many Members’ frustration with the Scrutiny system as a whole and its limited ability to either improve the processes of government or set appropriate limits on ministerial power.
It would, of course, be entirely wrong to prejudge the potential of the new Scrutiny chairmen or the panels that they will lead. In spite of this, it is fair to say that past experience tells us that the whole checks and balances element of the ministerial structure has been less of a success than we might have hoped.
Against this background, it is clearly a candidate for the tuning and improvement that was always envisaged as part of the development of our reformed system of government.
Related