A YEAR ago today the newly-elected chief minister, Lyndon Trott, set out his vision for the island’s future.
Top of the agenda – if he got his way – was to persuade the States to become a more open and honest body.
Transparency was essential, he said, if the factions which had marred the previous Assembly’s four years in office were to be avoided. With greater communication, both internally and externally, would come a more united States of Deliberation and island.
Getting all States departments to embrace that palpably sensible philosophy was never going to be easy. The abridged wheelchair report, for example, showed that not everyone is wholly comfortable with the ‘warts and all’ approach.
Its eventual release in full was a victory for the kind of thinking the chief minister hoped to engender.
It would be an irony of the highest order then if the Wales Audit Office’s report into how the States functions should not be publicly released. One of its own remits is an investigation into the openness and accountability of the governing body.
As one would expect, the man in charge, the Auditor General of Wales, is wholly in favour of its release. ‘I would encourage the Public Accounts Department and the States to publish our report in some form,’ he said.
In that light it seems inconceivable that the PAC will not publish a version of the findings. What will be key – and again the wheelchair report comes to mind – is how abridged is the version made available to islanders.
Paying lip service to transparency and openness by releasing the truth, but not the whole truth, is as bad as adopting a bunker mentality and refusing to communicate. The questions then focus on what has been left out, and why, rather than any recommendations.
The starting point for the PAC must therefore be a desire to publish everything. Only then, once strong arguments for some exclusions have been made, might parts be deemed too sensitive for general release.
Article posted on 1st May, 2009 - 3.21pm
9 Article Comments
Any report must be published in full.
I hope that the excellent letter from Griff Caldwell that appeared in the Press a few days ago will be taken on board by the WAO. It provides excellent qualitative evidence of some of the problems.
Anyone who missed the letter can see it at http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/12320.html?1241188816
It is well worth the read.
Report abuse
Publish and be damned.
Report abuse
You cannot run a government like a military regiment – that would be totalitarianism. The system we have, whilst frustrating, is much closer to true democracy.
A comparison between the two has no validity.
The report should be published in full with obvious action on any recommendations.
Report abuse
Cliff
Why the indignant rant about totalitarianism?
I can only assume it is your response to Griff Caldwell’s letter.
Try as I might I failed to see how the letter can be seen as advocating a totalitarian state.
The letter calls for strong leadership and the concept of colective responsibility. This last concept is usually seen as a plankstone of democracy.
As to your comment “A comparison between the two has no validity”. It is the comment that has no validity, as the Griff Caldwell letter cannot be seen as advocating totalitarianism over democracy.
I suppose someone will next write that the letter infringes human rights!!!!
Report abuse
Stephen John – Yes my comments were about Mr Caldwells’ letter which you mentioned in the first post on this thread. Many of those that have come out in support of his letter have suggested he must know what he is talking about because of his distinguished military career. I think that having a successful career in the military is very admirable but it doesn’t also qualify someone as a politician.
I would take issue with the main thrust of the letter because it suggests we have a lack of strong leadership in the house. The deputies are our elected representitives and should be led by us. The minute they start to lead democracy has failed. As I said the process we have is frustrating. Mr Caldwell mentions several times in his letter the shambles some debates turned into because origional proposals were thrown out. Surely this is, like the decision or not, true democracy in action. I would be appalled to know that someone I voted for was obliged to toe his or hers boards line when they felt strongly against it.
Report abuse
Cliff
Do you think there is strong leadership in the States?
Report abuse
Stephen John – the point I’m trying to make is that there shouldn’t be strong leadership. Our politicians should represent their constituants and are therefore led by the electorate. What we have now is closer to the dictionary definition of democracy than at any other time in our history. It can be very frustrating for individuals to see decisions made on a slim majority but essentially it is better for most.
If you look back over the major issues to come before the house over the last year you will see that the majority (all be it slim) of islanders have been well represented.
It is clear that you and other regular posters on Your Shout would not agree that this is the case but you don’t represent the majority, quite the opposite infact.
Report abuse
Cliff
An interesting observation that the States doesn’t need strong leadership.
There will be many who would suggest that the absence of strong leadership has led to poor decision making, bickering, discord etc.
Can I take it your are not in favour of cabinet government?
Report abuse
to expect our States to be run on the basis of political leadership rather than concensus is to misunderstand the basis on which it is founded. Leadership requires that the electorate had the opportunity to indicate who they wanted that leader to be – which requires the introduction of a party political system.
The electorate voted for individual members, it did not vote for Lydon Trott to be the Chief Minister nor did it vote to fill any of the departmental positions. Therefore to give the CM or Ministers a leadership role which subverts the need for consensus on every issue in the States would be fundamentally undemocratic. Cabinet responsibility simply does not fit in our current system.
If greater leadership is wanted, there must be a further complete overhaul of the way in which the States operates and is elected before that can be put in place.
Report abuse