“I have a question to do with scrutiny. The paper talks generally about scrutiny: I am really concerned with the merging of the two Policy Committees in January what we are planning to put in place in terms of scrutiny for that new merged Committee, and whether it is our intention formally to request that either Guernsey or the MOJ [Ministry of Justice] helps us with the scrutiny of that Committee. The clock is ticking. That merger is supposed to happen in January and I am not aware of any firm plans in place for that scrutiny.”

Mallinson’s concerns were inadequately addressed, with only one comment that scrutiny should be implemented in the future – hardly inspiring. In January 2019, as a result of the amalgamation of the former Policy & Performance and Finance & Resources Committees into a single committee – Policy & Finance – Chief Pleas announced that a scrutiny function would be needed to guard against any possible abuse of power by this single policy committee.

Chief Pleas proposed that a new committee, the Scrutiny Management Committee, be established with responsibility for scrutinising the work of all committees of Chief Pleas. The purpose of this new committee would be:

“The question of ratification is fundamental, because if, as it appears, the civil service has made a unilateral decision to create and then publish a Code of Conduct without even consulting the legislature, or indeed anybody at all, then they are acting as a unilateral legislating-body, both making and then implementing policy decisions.”

Introduced by the then Conseiller Pauline Mallinson, a member of the Policy & Finance Committee at that time, the constitution of this new committee was confirmed in a document appended to the report with proposition brought to the House:

“A President who shall be a Conseiller of Chief Pleas: provided that the President of the Scrutiny Management Committee shall not be the Chair or a member of the Policy & Finance Committee or the Chair of any other Committee of Chief Pleas; and two members who shall be Conseillers of Chief Pleas: provided that a member of the Scrutiny Management Committee shall not be the Chair or a member of the Policy & Finance Committee or the Chair or Deputy Chair of any other Committee of Chief Pleas; and two voting members who shall not be Conseillers of Chief Pleas and who shall be elected by Chief Pleas.”

Whilst the ‘Duties and Powers’ of this new Scrutiny Management Committee included:

To lead and co-ordinate the scrutiny of committees of Chief Pleas and those organisations which are in receipt of public funds, by reviewing and examining legislation, policies, services and the use of monies and other resources for which committees are responsible.

As far as is reasonably practicable, to appoint scrutiny panels to carry out the work of reviewing and scrutinising committees’ policies and services and their management of monies and other resources entrusted to them: provided that neither the President nor the members of the Policy & Finance Committee shall serve on such scrutiny panels and also provided that the Committee retains the power, if it so wishes, to carry out any review itself rather than through an a pointed panel and also provided that the Committee shall at all times be responsible, and accountable to Chief Pleas, for everything done by the Committee and any panels it has appointed, including the content of any report issued under its name.

To promote and facilitate the participation in scrutiny of the widest possible range of Conseillers of Chief Pleas and persons independent of Chief Pleas.

When determining the subject of its reviews and examinations, to pay particular attention to the performance of committees in contributing to Chief Pleas’ objectives and policy plans and to matters which are of substantial importance or of significant public interest.

To recognise that the carrying out of scrutiny in public where possible is likely to contribute positively to public perceptions of scrutiny.

To submit a report to Chief Pleas annually which reviews the work of the Committee and its panels over the previous 12 months and which sets out the Committee’s objectives and, to the extent that it is possible while retaining a flexible and responsive approach to scrutiny, an indicative programme of work over the next 12 months.

To represent the work of scrutiny in Chief Pleas, and publicly to promote and champion the value of scrutiny.’

After only one comment in debate from former Conseiller Sébastien Moerman who felt that the duties and powers of this new committee did not go far enough, the proposition was voted through in January 2019.

In July 2019 at the Midsummer meeting of Chief Pleas, former Conseiller Sam La Trobe-
Bateman, the then chair of Policy & Finance, proposed an amendment to the previously approved constitution of this scrutiny function. This amendment removed the restriction of deputy chairs of committees being unable to populate any scrutiny committee. This change came about as a result of the reduction in numbers of Conseillers in the House from 28 to 18; this amendment thereby gave way to a greater pool of Conseillers who can populate this committee. The 2019 Midsummer report then confirmed that:

“Following the approval of this report the Policy & Performance Committee (sic) will ask the Policy Development Group to arrange for the formation of this Committee.”

The error relating to the name of the committee in the report was amended during the meeting
by La Trobe-Bateman who updated it to the Policy & Finance Committee before this proposition was put to the House and approved with absolutely no debate. Nothing more was heard of regarding a Scrutiny Management Committee until September 2020 when Conseiller McHugh asked of the then Conseiller Sam La Trobe- Bateman for an update. His response was:

“It was decided [at a Policy Development Group meeting] that in order to have a robust and futureproof Scrutiny Committee, Conseillers should not be the ones scrutinising each other. Policy and Finance believe that by placing it within the mandate of the new tribunal panel makes sense. The tribunal panel will consist of, hopefully, six members of the public that will have proper training to fulfil their mandated roles. Their mandate will encompass the Road Traffic Tribunal, the Development Control Tribunal, Code of Conduct and the Scrutiny Committee. By creating this trained group, it will not only ensure neutral, professional judgement, but also free up individuals currently tied up on the two tribunals.”

The suggestion of scrutiny of Chief Pleas raised its head again at the 2021 Michaelmas meeting,
as a result of a query from the floor following the approval of the implementation of a Civil Service Code of Conduct, with Conseiller Kevin Delaney commenting that a Scrutiny Management Committee is yet to be established. The current chair of the Policy & Finance, Conseiller John Guille responded:

“… in terms of scrutiny, I won’t go into much detail on the hoof right now, but we have been in discussions with our colleagues in Guernsey about potentially sharing some sort of pan-Islands’ form of scrutiny which I think is very much along the lines of what you [Conseiller Delaney] are intimating just then… work is definitely in progress on that front.”

Recent items brought before Sark’s government that may not have withstood scrutiny would likely have included Chief Pleas’ attempt to remove the board of directors of the Isle of Sark Shipping Company Ltd (IoSS), the compulsory purchase of Sark Electricity Ltd (SEL), and the introduction of the aforementioned Civil Service
Code of Conduct. The IoSS matter in August 2020 saw the Chief Pleas reports and relevant
information only being released a few hours before Conseillers were expected to vote on the propositions. The compulsory purchase of SEL again saw an Extraordinary meeting of Chief Pleas being announced three days before it was due to take place, with the following statement, ‘copies of the Report will be distributed immediately
before the meeting.’ The Civil Service Code of Conduct appeared, ultra vires, on the Chief Pleas website in August 2021; Policy & Finance retrospectively sought the approval of the House two months after its publication. The
Sark Newspaper commented at that time:

“The question of ratification is fundamental, because if, as it appears, the civil service has made a unilateral decision to create and then publish a Code of Conduct without even consulting the legislature, or indeed anybody at all, then they are acting as a unilateral legislating-body, both making and then implementing policy decisions.”

Relatively recent public consultations regarding the future shape of Chief Pleas have seen respondents comment that Sark’s political culture, the current committee system and a lack of civil service resources are amongst reasons as to why the Island’s electorate have been discouraged from standing for election. However, to improve
how Chief Pleas communicates with the public, the following were listed within in the consultation responses:

Make some/more committee meetings open to the public
Regular news bulletins/government press releases
Reintroduce Conseiller surgeries
Publish brief minutes of meetings in which major decisions are made.

The establishment of an independent Scrutiny Management Committee would clearly go a long way to encourage confidence in Sark’s government from Islanders and may even encourage further participation from residents. Almost three years later, there is still no sign of an independent Scrutiny Management Committee for Sark, nor the amalgamation of the Island’s tribunal structure. Meanwhile the all-powerful Policy & Finance Committee, aided and abetted by the Chief Secretary, has fallen into a pattern of working in the abstract with little or no accountability to Conseillers who are outside of its population, nor to the Island’s electorate.

This article first appeared in the Sark Newspaper : April 27th 2022