DR HAROLD SHIPMAN carried out the mass murder of 15 of his elderly patients in Hyde.
Thomas Hamilton gunned down 16 children and an adult at Dunblane Primary School before committing suicide.
Guernsey Airport fire fighters took industrial action and the island’s airport was closed for a day.
Are these three events of equal gravity? Of course not. Yet it seems two senior civil servants are urging deputies to establish an inquiry into the airport closure modelled on those set up in the aftermath of these other dreadful events.
Leaving aside this apparent politicising of our civil service, let’s look at their suggestion.
They say a public investigation is needed – clearly that’s true. That it needs broad terms of reference – agreed.
That Deputy Lowe’s suggested Tribunal of Inquiry would be too restrictive and narrow – that’s true and is a pitfall of this law, which allows inquiries only into a ‘specific matter’.
The problem is, their alternative of a public inquiry like those carried out by Lord Cullen and Dame Janet Smith would be impractical, slow and hugely expensive.
No one of similar standing would be interested in the job and we would be left with a lesser chairman, with little knowledge of the Guernsey context.
As well as finding an investigation team, someone [not Policy Council, which is conflicted] would need to determine terms of reference and put in place a host of practical arrangements.
Then there’s the cost. Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the ‘Shipman Affair’ cost £21m. While this one would clearly be smaller, many of the costs would remain. Certainly if a Tribunal of Inquiry is estimated to cost £700,000, then the Brown/McMahon alternative is likely to run to seven figures.
Isn’t this overkill? No one was more outraged than me at the upset, disruption and distress caused by the strike that closed our airport. Not only did it badly affect innocent travellers, it damaged our reputation. An inquiry is needed to determine how we got into that mess and how to avoid it happening again. That inquiry must involve transparent, public hearings. However, the response must be proportionate, not hysterical.
One can’t help wondering whether the sense of panic from the centre is less about the risk to the island than the risk to political careers? Certainly an extra question any inquiry must now ask is how two senior civil servants came to break from all protocol and try to overtly influence what should be a political decision.
In particular, did any politician[s] suggest they do so?
The right route is simple. The States has a committee whose mandate includes: ‘Holding reviews into such matters of public importance that the committee may determine from time to time’.
It’s already started a review, which will be relatively quick, cost-effective and in line with established procedures.
The two civil servants acknowledge all these positives but point to three drawbacks.
The first is Scrutiny’s mandate being too narrow. Not true, see above.
The second is that it would be seen as a ‘political process’. That’s good: most of the real questions to be answered are political. Is there a better way to set public sector pay? No strike agreements? Commercialising the airport? Combining our two fire services? These questions are better addressed by a political inquiry than by a legal hearing.
The third is that the three politicians selected are too inexperienced.
Patronising nonsense. Deputy Fallaize is clearly very able, Deputy McManus an intelligent, thoughtful man with experience in industrial relations, and Deputy Kuttelwascher a very independent thinker with knowledge of airports. Together with the right outside experts, they will make a formidable team. Certainly I can think of combinations of three experienced deputies who would be far less up to the task.
In the end the answers will have to be political and debated on the floor of the House. Meantime, it feels as if some are choosing their preferred type of inquiry to produce a given outcome. Some signatories of the Lowe requete really want a vote of no confidence in the chief minister but lack the courage to say so. Others want an outsider ‘parachuted in’ to defuse matters.
Such prejudgement is wrong. Any inquiry should start from a position of neutrality. Among the questions it will have to address is whether the chief minister and the Emergency Powers Authority undermined one of the few States Committees without ministerial membership. Undermining the role of another such committee would be a poor start.
The questions must be asked
DR HAROLD SHIPMAN carried out the mass murder of 15 of his elderly patients in Hyde.
Thomas Hamilton gunned down 16 children and an adult at Dunblane Primary School before committing suicide.
Guernsey Airport fire fighters took industrial action and the island’s airport was closed for a day.
Are these three events of equal gravity? Of course not. Yet it seems two senior civil servants are urging deputies to establish an inquiry into the airport closure modelled on those set up in the aftermath of these other dreadful events.
Leaving aside this apparent politicising of our civil service, let’s look at their suggestion.
They say a public investigation is needed – clearly that’s true. That it needs broad terms of reference – agreed.
That Deputy Lowe’s suggested Tribunal of Inquiry would be too restrictive and narrow – that’s true and is a pitfall of this law, which allows inquiries only into a ‘specific matter’.
The problem is, their alternative of a public inquiry like those carried out by Lord Cullen and Dame Janet Smith would be impractical, slow and hugely expensive.
No one of similar standing would be interested in the job and we would be left with a lesser chairman, with little knowledge of the Guernsey context.
As well as finding an investigation team, someone [not Policy Council, which is conflicted] would need to determine terms of reference and put in place a host of practical arrangements.
Then there’s the cost. Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the ‘Shipman Affair’ cost £21m. While this one would clearly be smaller, many of the costs would remain. Certainly if a Tribunal of Inquiry is estimated to cost £700,000, then the Brown/McMahon alternative is likely to run to seven figures.
Isn’t this overkill? No one was more outraged than me at the upset, disruption and distress caused by the strike that closed our airport. Not only did it badly affect innocent travellers, it damaged our reputation. An inquiry is needed to determine how we got into that mess and how to avoid it happening again. That inquiry must involve transparent, public hearings. However, the response must be proportionate, not hysterical.
One can’t help wondering whether the sense of panic from the centre is less about the risk to the island than the risk to political careers? Certainly an extra question any inquiry must now ask is how two senior civil servants came to break from all protocol and try to overtly influence what should be a political decision.
In particular, did any politician[s] suggest they do so?
The right route is simple. The States has a committee whose mandate includes: ‘Holding reviews into such matters of public importance that the committee may determine from time to time’.
It’s already started a review, which will be relatively quick, cost-effective and in line with established procedures.
The two civil servants acknowledge all these positives but point to three drawbacks.
The first is Scrutiny’s mandate being too narrow. Not true, see above.
The second is that it would be seen as a ‘political process’. That’s good: most of the real questions to be answered are political. Is there a better way to set public sector pay? No strike agreements? Commercialising the airport? Combining our two fire services? These questions are better addressed by a political inquiry than by a legal hearing.
The third is that the three politicians selected are too inexperienced.
Patronising nonsense. Deputy Fallaize is clearly very able, Deputy McManus an intelligent, thoughtful man with experience in industrial relations, and Deputy Kuttelwascher a very independent thinker with knowledge of airports. Together with the right outside experts, they will make a formidable team. Certainly I can think of combinations of three experienced deputies who would be far less up to the task.
In the end the answers will have to be political and debated on the floor of the House. Meantime, it feels as if some are choosing their preferred type of inquiry to produce a given outcome. Some signatories of the Lowe requete really want a vote of no confidence in the chief minister but lack the courage to say so. Others want an outsider ‘parachuted in’ to defuse matters.
Such prejudgement is wrong. Any inquiry should start from a position of neutrality. Among the questions it will have to address is whether the chief minister and the Emergency Powers Authority undermined one of the few States Committees without ministerial membership. Undermining the role of another such committee would be a poor start.
Article posted on 29th June, 2009 - 4.07pm