"You couldn't make it up!"

Thursday 05 September 2019

A four-hour debate into whether there should be a Tribunal of Inquiry into a controversial Education appointment unravelled into nothing, with the States amending Scrutiny's proposal then rejecting the amended plan.

The Scrutiny Management Committee wanted the States to commission a Tribunal of Inquiry, with full legal powers, into the Education Committee's involvement in the appointment of a Head of Curriculum & Standards, at a cost of up to £250,000.

An amendment from the floor of the Assembly instead suggested that Scrutiny carry out a review itself, citing the high cost of the tribunal, how long it could end up taking and accusing Scrutiny of "passing the buck". 

That amendment was successful, but when it came to the final vote, only 13 voted for the amended proposition, 14 against and 12 abstained. In a States meeting that will see significant and lengthy debate on the future of education, valuable parliamentary time came to nothing. 

Deputy Heidi Soulsby summarised the situation afterwards: "States decides to have no review into appointment of Head of Curriculum and Standards either by Tribunal or SMC. Couldn’t make it up" she tweeted last night, later adding that "politics had got in the way of common sense".

I’ll say it again, when it comes to standards, governance and conduct, do we know what good looks like any more ?

— Richard Digard (@richarddigard) 4 September 2019

 During the debate, Deputy Paul Le Pelley delivered an impassioned plea for members to support the Tribunal of Inquiry, saying that the public would not forgive a "half-hearted attempt to do it in-house".

He responded fiercely to Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez's questions as to why anyone would refuse to participate in a Scrutiny-led review. 

"In giving evidence [there will be staff] who risk losing their jobs, or not being promoted, or being sent to Coventry by their workmates," he said. 

"There will be people there who will have to be forced to give evidence because it will be so damaging to their prospects to do so [of their own accord]."

If she did not believe this would happen, he asked whether she was "living in the real world". 

Pictured: Scrutiny President Chris Green said his committee did not have the powers to force witnesses. 

Scrutiny members opposed the amended proposals, saying the "effectiveness and meaningfulness" of any review Scrutiny conducted would be undermined by its lack of powers to compel witnesses and documents if people did not want to provide them. 

"It is a sad day for this States and it will do nothing," said Deputy Laurie Queripel. "What we wanted to do in good faith was to try to help and raise confidence and that belief in government.

"We [Scrutiny] will do our very best but that might not happen now - there was a better chance with a Tribunal of Inquiry."

It is now up to Scrutiny what to do next. It is within the committee's mandate to decide to hold their own inquiry or pursue a different form of independent inquiry.