SINCE the new era of government was ushered in in May 2004, this newspaper has highlighted the role of the Policy Council – as set out by the States itself – in being instrumental in delivering it.
Ministers by and large do not agree, not least because finding fault with the council reflects on all of them, irrespective of where true blame might lie.
Yet if the council cannot resolve conflict, who can? What, apart from being a well staffed talking shop, would be its purpose?
The dispute between Commerce and Employment and Environment this week illustrates the matter perfectly.
There is a shortage of ‘Fred in a shed’ land for islanders wanting to start their own business and perhaps become the next big entrepreneur.
C&E knows that and so does Environment. They agreed so jointly after proper research. The planning authority, however, and in a move calculated to reinforce the view it is becoming increasingly eccentric, has performed a peevish U-turn.
True, it is a decision from a department with a worse reputation than the IDC for prevarication but it is still a disservice to local business and to the work which went into the joint statement.
Environment has not seen fit to explain its change of heart and, as Commerce and Employment notes in its surprisingly candid response, hardly represents a joined-up approach on corporate objectives.
If, as it appears, Environment has left the real world and is now wearing sandals and smoking a curly pipe, who is to knock some sense into it if not the Policy Council?
The precedent for direct action was established by the chief minister over the Markets railings fiasco and this is far more serious.
Heads should have been banged together in private before this ever became yet another joined-up government issue.
It is not too late to rescue matters, but it has to be done now.
Unless there really is no one in charge any more.
It’s time to bang heads
SINCE the new era of government was ushered in in May 2004, this newspaper has highlighted the role of the Policy Council – as set out by the States itself – in being instrumental in delivering it.
Ministers by and large do not agree, not least because finding fault with the council reflects on all of them, irrespective of where true blame might lie.
Yet if the council cannot resolve conflict, who can? What, apart from being a well staffed talking shop, would be its purpose?
The dispute between Commerce and Employment and Environment this week illustrates the matter perfectly.
There is a shortage of ‘Fred in a shed’ land for islanders wanting to start their own business and perhaps become the next big entrepreneur.
C&E knows that and so does Environment. They agreed so jointly after proper research. The planning authority, however, and in a move calculated to reinforce the view it is becoming increasingly eccentric, has performed a peevish U-turn.
True, it is a decision from a department with a worse reputation than the IDC for prevarication but it is still a disservice to local business and to the work which went into the joint statement.
Environment has not seen fit to explain its change of heart and, as Commerce and Employment notes in its surprisingly candid response, hardly represents a joined-up approach on corporate objectives.
If, as it appears, Environment has left the real world and is now wearing sandals and smoking a curly pipe, who is to knock some sense into it if not the Policy Council?
The precedent for direct action was established by the chief minister over the Markets railings fiasco and this is far more serious.
Heads should have been banged together in private before this ever became yet another joined-up government issue.
It is not too late to rescue matters, but it has to be done now.
Unless there really is no one in charge any more.
Share this article:
What are these?