Scapegoat required - at any cost
OVER the last couple of days, this newspaper has been critical of Commerce and Employment and the Environment Department for going out to tender for yet another consultancy, this time to undertake a study of retailing in Guernsey.
OVER the last couple of days, this newspaper has been critical of Commerce and Employment and the Environment Department for going out to tender for yet another consultancy, this time to undertake a study of retailing in Guernsey.
That, of course, is the public justification for the expenditure. The actual reason, revealed in the terms of reference, is rather different.
Environment is looking to buy in people to do its job for it. Given that its staffing has increased and it charges double for them - planning applicants will also pay as taxpayers - that seems puzzling.
Yet the department wants the successful consultant to 'assist' in assessing the Leale's Yard development, which calls into question the planning department's capability to do the job for which islanders will pay £2.4m. this year, including £40,000 on consultants.
But it also wants its bought-in experts to check the work done by the Channel Island Co-operative Society's consultants in support of its Bridge development application.
Why Environment cannot do that itself is something Scrutiny and the Public Accounts Committee might want to look into, but the implications are rather wider than competency.
The Co-op used probably the leading firm in its field with an impressive list of clients and testimonials - just the sort of people Environment might use to carry out a study in retailing in Guernsey.
C&E/Environment now want to employ people other than their own staff to see whether the Co-op's consultants have done a proper job. But what if Environment's people decide that the Co-op's made a botch of it? Will islanders have to pay for a third set of consultants to debate which is the more likely outcome or will Environment's own staff suddenly develop analytical powers and belatedly come to some conclusions of their own?
And how will islanders feel paying £45,000 (or whatever it comes to) for Environment to say that, yes, after all a UK market leader that has worked for Lloyds TSB, FT.com, Aga and local and national authorities really did know what it was talking about after all?
What this is actually about is Environment realising that approving or rejecting Leale's Yard will be controversial and it needs - whatever the cost - someone else to take the flak.
