Guernsey Press

Criticism is a result of the system

Writing in this page on Monday, the Housing minister made some interesting points about what he considered to be unwarranted criticism of States members by a correspondent to this newspaper and, in the course of his detailed reply, made some further observations.

Published

Writing in this page on Monday, the Housing minister made some interesting points about what he considered to be unwarranted criticism of States members by a correspondent to this newspaper and, in the course of his detailed reply, made some further observations.

In particular, he argued that in earlier days press coverage was 'much less hostile and certainly not as personally directed at States members as it is today'.

If that was a reference to this newspaper, he is correct. The 2004 reforms claimed to deliver joined up government, the salaries and pensions for deputies and the emergence of ministers changed the political landscape completely.

Add to that a succession of reports commissioned by government itself showing how inefficiently it operates, how its underlying structure is hopelessly wrong, and that, to quote Tribal Consulting, 'a financially profligate culture was able to flourish' and it is clear that taxpayers and this newspaper have every reason to ask searching questions of island representatives.

While rising revenues masked the inherent weaknesses in government command and control and while being a deputy was regarded as largely voluntary and certainly part-time, life was inevitably easier for States members.

Today, however, the focus is firmly on performance – and accountability, the lack of which is also frequently critically commented upon by external consultants.

One of the difficulties, which the Housing minister indirectly identifies, is just who takes responsibility when things go wrong.

Few islanders, for instance, are likely to believe that Environment is doing a particularly good job either regarding its planning remit (Griffin's Grotto and others) or on transport (keeping the buses running, providing adequate parking and managing an effective and coherent transport policy).

If so, who should those perceived shortcomings be taken up with? The senior civil servant who, in theory at least, is following the policies of his political masters? The minister, who may have been outvoted by his board? The members themselves? Or perhaps the Assembly for letting them get away with it, as it did over paid parking?

If States members believe they are criticised in some unfair form of scattergun approach that's because there is so little genuine accountability in the system they have created.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.