No value in a tick-box report
A LETTER on these pages today from Dr Peter Rabey, in his role as the ‘Responsible Officer’ for the States, in relation to his involvement in the regulation of doctors locally, criticises our coverage of his report, while probably unwittingly exposing the shortcomings of the 10-page document.
Essentially Dr Rabey seems to indicate that there is ‘nothing to see’ in his report. If there were, perhaps he would be good enough to point it out in the contents of the document.
If the report is so opaque that nobody – including reporters – can work out what it is trying to say, it must raise questions about the value of its publication, and the point of even placing the report before the States.
Deputy Gavin St Pier will bid again to have the report debated today.
And he believes that, once again, Health & Social Care will strongly oppose the move – perhaps on the basis of fear about what he may say in relation to an investigation into a local specialist, which he raised 12 months ago, to widespread consternation.
Deputy St Pier argues that the report is worth debating as it is the only regulatory ‘window’ the States has to take a look at the largest-spending committee in government.
However if the opposition is based on the view that the report is simply not worth debating, surely it raises the issue of whether it’s worth publishing in the first place.