A DECISION by the Scrutiny Committee to make its first headline action - a public review - into vandalism is likely to be welcomed by islanders, especially any of the growing number affected by it.
Few things irritate people more than low-level, mindless attacks on private property and the expensive damage caused to vehicles, invariably for no reason other than, perhaps, drunkenness.
So a forensic investigation into how well coordinated the various agencies’ approaches are to tackling this and whether the taxpayer receives value for money for what is spent is overdue.
And yet there is a certain sense that Scrutiny might have had better targets for its limited firepower. The committee was created as an essential counterbalance to the inertia of government, yet going after vandalism is unlikely to have any minister wondering whether he or she is doing an effective job.
The Scrutiny chairman is correct in saying that crime is a headline priority under the Government Business Plan but it is seventh out of 14 and the actual point is to take firm action against crime and the causes and effects of crime. On that basis, Scrutiny might have been better advised to consider how much theft and burglary would be reduced by legalising drugs so individuals were not having to steal to fund a black-market habit.
Of more direct relevance to a majority of islanders are existing policies on States expenditure, population and wealth distribution. All of these are ripe for scrutiny - if not outright opposition - and, unlike vandalism, open to change through public debate. Elsewhere, the business plan seeks to provide best value health care for the community and to maximise the return on investment in education but unless Scrutiny and/or Public Accounts becomes involved, what third-party review is there of what many would already consider to be questionable policies?
Health care here might be good but it is also expensive and many struggle to meet their bills. So, for example, does a visit to a GP reflect good value and some sort of negotiated deal for the patient or a cartel arrangement for the medical practices?
While Scrutiny frets over spray-painted walls, islanders will never know.
Article posted on 2nd July, 2008 - 3.28pm
Scrutiny’s choice was off target
A DECISION by the Scrutiny Committee to make its first headline action - a public review - into vandalism is likely to be welcomed by islanders, especially any of the growing number affected by it.
Few things irritate people more than low-level, mindless attacks on private property and the expensive damage caused to vehicles, invariably for no reason other than, perhaps, drunkenness.
So a forensic investigation into how well coordinated the various agencies’ approaches are to tackling this and whether the taxpayer receives value for money for what is spent is overdue.
And yet there is a certain sense that Scrutiny might have had better targets for its limited firepower. The committee was created as an essential counterbalance to the inertia of government, yet going after vandalism is unlikely to have any minister wondering whether he or she is doing an effective job.
The Scrutiny chairman is correct in saying that crime is a headline priority under the Government Business Plan but it is seventh out of 14 and the actual point is to take firm action against crime and the causes and effects of crime. On that basis, Scrutiny might have been better advised to consider how much theft and burglary would be reduced by legalising drugs so individuals were not having to steal to fund a black-market habit.
Of more direct relevance to a majority of islanders are existing policies on States expenditure, population and wealth distribution. All of these are ripe for scrutiny - if not outright opposition - and, unlike vandalism, open to change through public debate. Elsewhere, the business plan seeks to provide best value health care for the community and to maximise the return on investment in education but unless Scrutiny and/or Public Accounts becomes involved, what third-party review is there of what many would already consider to be questionable policies?
Health care here might be good but it is also expensive and many struggle to meet their bills. So, for example, does a visit to a GP reflect good value and some sort of negotiated deal for the patient or a cartel arrangement for the medical practices?
While Scrutiny frets over spray-painted walls, islanders will never know.
Article posted on 2nd July, 2008 - 3.28pm