Attempts to blame the Scrutiny Management Committee for the latest delays over the redevelopment of Leale’s Yard have been shut down by the committee itself.
In a statement issued this morning, the SMC has said comments made on social media over the weekend have attempted to “mischaracterise the Committee’s ongoing scrutiny of information relating to a major project and incorrectly suggest that the Committee is unwilling to meet”.
Scrutiny President, Deputy Andy Sloan said: “That characterisation is wrong and diverts attention from the substantive issue.”
His committee recently wrote a ‘Letter of Comment’ on the proposed ‘Major Projects Portfolio Report’ that the States are due to debate this week.
Presented by Policy and Resources, that report could lead to a new way of “planning, prioritising, and managing major projects”.
P&R says its new ‘pipeline’ approach would put more emphasis on “good planning at an early stage”. It will also allow the priority list to change as needed.
In principle, Scrutiny agrees – and in its Letter of Comment, it says “the proposed framework has the potential to improve planning, transparency and strategic alignment”. However, Scrutiny also warned that “the effectiveness of these reforms will ultimately depend on the extent to which they are underpinned by” various other factors including ‘clear financial discipline’, and ‘appropriate mechanisms to preserve transparency’.
“The Committee encourages the Policy & Resources Committee to give further consideration to these matters and looks forward to reviewing progress in due course,” it concluded.
SMC has now gone further to reiterate how it views its own work and processes.
“Scrutiny is a formal, evidence-based process. It is conducted through public hearings, structured information requests, and the provision of clear, complete and auditable documentation. It is not conducted through informal discussions or retrospective explanations. Meetings may assist understanding, but they do not replace the requirement to provide the information on which scrutiny depends.”
Today’s statement claims comments made on social media over the weekend are “not consistent with the documented record and are not borne out by the Committee’s correspondence” and that it also “rejects the suggestion that there have been repeated requests for meetings forming part of the scrutiny process”.
“There has been no sustained or formal engagement at political level following the Committee’s information request, and no pattern of correspondence that could reasonably be characterised in that way. Any suggestion to the contrary is not an accurate reflection of the position. More importantly, attempts to substitute meetings for the provision of information are not consistent with due scrutiny process and risk undermining the transparency and accountability that scrutiny is intended to provide.
“More broadly, this situation demonstrates in practice the concerns the Scrutiny Management Committee set out in its recent letter to the States. Without clear, transparent and auditable information at project level, there is a material risk that weaknesses in governance and decision-making will persist, notwithstanding changes to the overarching framework.”