post set up as part of the changes, produces reports which are reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. If the Public Accounts Committee


considers that any of the issues raised in the reports are of public interest then there will be a public hearing at which the committee will question the relevant senior civil servant (chief officer) for the relevant department. The committee will then issue its report. Scrutiny panels can pick up a review of


new policy at any stage, from the pre-Green Paper to the debate in the Assembly. Scrutiny panels will interview Ministers and relevant witnesses, who may be members of the public, regarding the proposed policy or the effects of an existing policy. The conduct of the Public Accounts


Committee and the scrutiny panels is governed by a Code of Conduct which is due to be debated in February.


Getting started Scrutiny has perhaps been slower to find its feet than the executive. This is not surprising when one considers that the executive merely continued with an existing infrastructure but scrutiny has had to develop an entirely new system. As with any new system, there have


been matters to iron out to facilitate the smooth running of the new system. Some of these are purely concerned with the running of the scrutiny function, and some relate to the interaction between the executive and scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the biggest bones of


contention concerned relationships between the executive and scrutiny. Under the committee system, all


Members sitting on committees could be considered to be part of the government. The change to a ministerial system means that there is a clearly defined executive which constitutional lawyers consider to be the government. This has been one of the most difficult concepts for Members to understand. Like Guernsey, Jersey has a non-party


Assembly. Under the committee system, the questioning of a policy tended to be a lone Member opposing one or more committees. The scrutiny system provides a solid platform for one or more scrutiny panels to question the executive. This provides a more effective means of questioning policy.


Friendly fire Under the committee system, the President of the committee had the benefit of four to


six independent members who reviewed and questioned a policy before it was brought to the States. This no longer exists as the Minister


and his or her appointed Assistant Minister can discuss policy only with their civil servants and the Council of Ministers before bringing it to the Assembly for debate. As a result the only critical and independent questioning of policies will come from the scrutiny panels. Not only have the scrutiny reports been


intelligently prepared on the basis of evidence, but they have also informed the entire Assembly on a particular topic. This has led to an improvement in the quality of debate, although the criticism has not always been welcomed by the executive. The executive is gradually learning that


the scrutiny concept of a "critical friend" does not mean that that friend will always support the view of the executive unquestioningly. It is also not possible to ignore 100


pages of a carefully reasoned report based on evidence in the same way that one might ignore a lone Don Quixote. In a system lacking a formal opposition,


there is pressure for scrutiny to act as such. Currently it operates in a so-called consensus political structure and the executive has yet to fully accept that the critiques of scrutiny have to be taken seriously if consensus is to work. Sometimes, its reports are politicized by the executive as a way of deflecting attention from their validity. If this happens too often, it could lead to


scrutiny feeling frustrated and Mem-bers taking a more oppositional stance.


Requiring Ministers to respond to scrutiny It has also become obvious that there must be better communication between the executive and the Chairmen's Committee, particularly to iron out any problems that arise. It is for this reason that a working group has been set up, comprised of the Chief Minister, another Minister and the President and Vice-President of the Chairmen's Committee. This group has already brought an


important piece of work to fruition: there is now an agreed protocol for Ministers responding to scrutiny panel reports. This is extremely important. Without formal follow- up procedures, the executive could ignore scrutiny reports. Under the Jersey protocols, Ministers


10 The Parliamentarian 2008/Issue One - Jersey


must make a summary reply to the report within six weeks of publication with a detailed reply within three months. This reply should comment on the


recommendations in the report and explain reasons for rejecting recommendations and should identify recommendations which will be accepted. In some respects, the fact that the


guidelines for scrutiny are broad-brush rather than detailed has been an advantage: it has allowed the panels and the Public Accounts Committee to adopt new techniques in obtaining evidence and presenting the message to the public. Some of these have been highly innovative and have caused an occasional raised eyebrow. Scrutiny panels have organized


exhibitions, taken stands at trade shows, held hearings in parish halls and have attended conferences. There has also been a joint initiative with


the Education Department to raise youngsters' awareness about the role of scrutiny and ministerial government as part of the citizenship programme in schools. Scrutiny has also started to publish its own newsletter. As part of the drive to transparency, all


transcripts of scrutiny hearings and virtually all minutes of meetings are published on the scrutiny and Public Accounts Committee websites which were launched during 2007 - www.scrutiny.gov.je and www.pac.gov.je. All of these approaches have


emphasized the theme that scrutiny is there to hold the executive to account and the Public Accounts Committee is there to hold the senior civil servants to account. This is a new concept for Jersey and one which has been welcomed by the public.


Conclusion Scrutiny is an extremely important feature of the new executive style of government. It provides the means of an objective


appraisal of policy and the holding of Ministers and senior civil servants to account. It also involves the public as witnesses, as contributors and as an audience. Under the committee system, it was


considerably more difficult to attribute accountability. The new system identifies


accountabilities and allows for constructive questioning. The value of the change will become


more apparent as time goes on. There will be more challenges, but


scrutiny is more than ready to meet them.


“Critical Friends”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36