Fluoride Action Network

Guernsey: Review into PFOS case will look at decisions made

Source: ITV.com | February 12th, 2016
Location: Guernsey
Industry type: Perfluorinated chemicals

Guernsey’s states have released the details of a review into the Public Services Department, after a court battle lost them £8 million.

A long-running claim against 3M – a company that produces a fire-fighting foam used at Guernsey and Alderney airports – ended in favour of the company, with the States having to foot the bill for legal costs.

An independent review into the settlement of the case, is expected to be completed by the end of next month.

It is important to co-commission this review in order to look at all aspects of what led to the settlement of the PFOS court case, and at what can be done to strengthen decision-making and governance in the future in order to assure our community about the way that public money is spent.

– Paul Whitfield, Chief Executive Officer of the States

Five points of reference have been decided on for the review, looking at various aspects of the case:

1. Accountability and authorisation

  • How did the relationship between legal advice and civil servant decision-making operate during this process?
  • How was the strength of evidence evaluated and reviewed?
  • How was the process managed in terms of go-no go decisions, particularly in relation to the decision not to accept an early settlement?

2. Decision-making

  • How did the relationship between legal advice and civil servant decision-making operate during this process?
  • How was the strength of evidence evaluated and reviewed?
  • How was the process managed in terms of go-no go decisions, particularly in relation to the decision not to accept an early settlement?

3. Risk management and reporting

  • How was risk in relation to cost, liability and prospects of success managed and mitigated?
  • What was the nature of stakeholder reporting during this process, within PSD and externally to the CEMT, to the Policy Council and to the Treasury & Resources Board?

4. Financial governance

  • How did responsibility for authorising expenditure operate and what limits are in place?
  • How did monitoring and control occur and how was oversight of expenditure exercised?

5. Improvements and actions

  • What steps can be taken to improve the four areas above, ie accountability and authorisation, decision-making, risk management and reporting, and financial governance?
  • What steps can be taken to ensure that the formal lines of governance are fully cognisant of all legal considerations and advice?