Full inquiry needed into 'seafront fiasco'
HAVING attended the rally/protest meeting on Sunday 12 July it was interesting to listen to the comments of many of those who attended, insomuch as the seafront changes have become a focus for voicing a general discontent with the way this particular States Assembly is impacting on the everyday lives of islanders.
Deputy Dave Jones made a comment some months ago that islanders were fed up with the States being in their faces. How true that rings now.
It has been quite notable that although the whole seafront fiasco has been badly handled, the politicians behind the schemes have, in the main, faced the public to defend what many believe is the indefensible.
It is equally notable that the instigators of these changes, namely the harbour management, have been noticeably absent from the public defence of these largely unpopular and, in many people's opinions, unnecessary changes.
It would seem to many that the phrase 'harbour operations' becomes the excuse for change without accountability, much as governments frequently hide behind the impenetrable phrase 'national security' or in our case 'risk assessment'.
I fully understand that the harbour authorities are public servants, hopefully trying to do their best for the island, and as such they should, as with any public servant, be shielded from public criticism by their political masters.
Having said that, along with many others, I attended the 'My Harbours' presentations intended to look to the future of the harbours. There was certainly no mention at any of these presentations of the changes to St Peter Port that would start to come into being only a matter of a couple of months later.
The point is that there was either an entire lack of forward planning, which demonstrates dire incompetence, or a lack of disclosure, which demonstrates a complete disrespect for the public. Further, their political masters apparently had had no pre-warning of their plans and therefore have had to bear the brunt of public outrage. It cannot only be the politicians who are to be held to account over this whole situation. They will probably pay the price at the next election, but there needs to be a full and public inquiry into how this whole lamentable situation arose and if needs be individuals should be held to account if we are to avoid this type of situation arising again. Perhaps this should be the very first task of the new 'with teeth' scrutiny panel proposed in the constitutional review. After all, at last estimate over £450,000 of public money has been spent with seemingly no political approval.
MICHAEL HENDERSON,
Ma Carriere,
Petit Bouet,
St Peter Port, GY1 2AN.
