Views expressed by columnist about my personal comments cannot be ascribed to me

I am referring to Richard Digard’s article from 7 July, ‘Black hole star-gazing’.

As a question of fact, I have not met with or spoken to Mr Richard Digard since about the time of the previous CEO’s

[of the States] dismissal in August 2021.

The views expressed by Mr Digard in the article about my personal comments cannot therefore be ascribed to me.

I have not at any time said ‘Deputy Helyar says’ that ‘the gap between what Guernsey is taking in and what it wants to spend [is £135m.]’, nor, whilst writing, have I ever said I personally favour pushing the pension age past 70 or indeed that I personally want ESS to raise its rents.

None of these things is either true or representative of my personal views, and your readers deserve to know this, and that all of these pieces (and many more) have been published without having sought out my views and without being given any opportunity for rebuttal before publication.

The Guernsey Press is in my view repeatedly publishing a diatribe of biased misinformation masquerading as personal opinion. As a public servant I am not afraid of criticism, but I have a legitimate expectation (and it is in the public interest) under the IPSO code for my views to be properly and accurately represented and to be given the opportunity to put the real facts in proper context.

The GP’s increasingly op-ed driven approach, with no opportunity for reply or rebuttal, is demeaning the quality of public discourse at a time when the real facts about the parlous state of our finances are more important to accurately report than they have been for many decades.

Clause 1,(iv) of the code, requires that editors must ‘distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact’. In my view, and in relation to several of its commentators, the Guernsey Press is repeatedly falling far, far short of that duty.

DEPUTY MARK HELYAR

Editor’s note: Richard Digard was approached to clarify his column in the light of this letter received.

He responded as follows:

Thank you for the opportunity of responding to Deputy Helyar’s concerns over my column of 7 July.

He quotes a second reference to the £135m. annual deficit, but my first reference to the figure was: ‘The actual black hole might be £3m., or the highly politicised £135m. quoted by that recent convert to GST, Deputy Helyar.’

I say 'quoted' deliberately, because that figure has a subheading of its own, in bold, in the States Accounts 2022 media release – https://www.gov.gg/article/196848/States-of-Guernsey-Accounts-2022 – issued with his name as Treasury lead for the Policy & Resources Committee, in it, as follows: ‘2022 overall deficit is £135m’.

I can’t comment on the reference to pension age or rents as I made no reference to these in the column.

I understand they relate to comments made at a Scrutiny public hearing earlier this year. It’s more for the editor than me to respond to Deputy Helyar’s concerns over the IPSO code, relating to separating fact from comment, but my column in print and online is badged as opinion, and quite clearly goes out in my name.

My columns are factually based but I don’t think they’re easily mistaken for impartial news items or, indeed, presented as such.