Why pay consultants for seafront solution?

We have in fact two political boards supposedly guiding and overseeing our professional, employed planners in respect of the seafront. We now also have the chief minister's Seafront Working Party. I have to ask the question, with this plethora of expert planners and politicians, all of whom are remunerated by the taxpayer and who are constantly making the day to day decisions that affect islanders' lives and aspirations, why on earth are we, the taxpayers, going to be yet again burdened with the bill for yet more outside consultants?

There are only one or two feasible options for the seafront. What can an outside consultancy come up with that has not already been discussed? Are they going to suggest a bridge, an under-pass, the scrapping of the Albert Pier landing for cruise liner passengers, or the implementation of the Town Centre Management's vision to pedestrianise the whole seafront?

The frank truth is that the introduction of an outside consultancy is a political expedient to cover an intransigent Environment political board until next April's election, by which time they will hope we have forgotten the whole sorry mess, and it is also convenient for the planning professionals, who are now able to avoid having to make concrete decisions on what has become a real political hot potato.

I can well understand Mary Lowe's position. Why would she wish to be associated with what is becoming a whitewash?

For my own part, and I'm open to correction and criticism, I think the reintroduction of two lanes south and the now larger than the original pedestrian courtesy crossing reservation are probably right, I could not justify adding to the more than £400,000 already spent by the States by scrapping the new landing facilities, however, and this is where political direction is required. I do think that when we have more than one cruise liner the landing points should be split between the White Rock and the Albert Pier. The White Rock, even if it needs improvement, should be the main disembarkation point, and when the Albert Pier is used the courtesy crossing should be firmly closed, thereby shepherding cruise liner passengers to the light-controlled crossings.

I personally do not buy the arguments put forward by the harbour authority regarding the Albert Pier vs the White Rock and until they or (as he has taken a stand on this) the chief minister publish the full risk assessments for scrutiny by other professional bodies, both the harbour authority and the chief minister must accept that their credibility will be called into question on this matter.

We have, hopefully, if it's not watered down, a new system of government emerging, one where a policy-making panel will mandate the reduced number of committees to carry out clear strategies and objectives. We are promised a scrutiny committee with the power to compel ministers and civil servants to appear. All this is proposed to improve the decision making and effectiveness of government. What hope is there of achieving these laudable aims if, as witnessed by the all too apparent duplicity created by a simple stretch of road, these promised aspirations fall apart by the example now being set in the last throes of this present administration? What hope do we have of seeking the vital answers to our future financial stability, health, education, housing, to keeping our young families here, and diversifying our economy, if we cannot even sort out a quarter mile of road?

It really is not good enough to kick the can down the proverbial road for the next Assembly to have to sort out. They will need to immerse themselves in the really difficult decisions for our future, and judging by one potential member's desire to open the whole zero-20 can of worms, the next Assembly will have its work cut out to avoid endless diversions and schisms without being burdened with the seafront debacle. This is a mess created by this administration and if it is to prove that it has credibility, this administration should sort this out.