IT IS almost impossible to remove incompetent senior civil servants. Deputy Charles Parkinson’s comments at yesterday’s Chamber of Commerce lunch were made after Deputy Dave Jones hit out at ‘Spanish practices’ in the public sector.

‘There’s a serious issue imposing discipline on civil servants, which is very largely a self-regulated body,’ said Deputy Parkinson.

‘It’s extremely difficult for anybody to get an incompetent senior civil servant out, they have an almost entrenched position. We do need to look at rebalancing the public interest with the rights of staff as employees.’

The Policy Council is set to review the role of the States as an employer with mounting pressure for reform of the civil service.

But Deputy Parkinson said he did not want to labour on the problems of removing unsuitable people.

‘Nearly all the civil servants I have come across have been very able people and I have a lot of respect for many of them,’ he said.

‘Before I went into politics I thought there must be loads of people sitting around doing crossword puzzles. My views have changed. There are a lot of able people doing very good quality work and we should be proud of them.’

Deputy Parkinson spoke on what it was like going into the States from a business background.

He confirmed that he would be standing for re-election in 2008.

But being a deputy was not without its problems.

Deputy Parkinson said the States tried to regulate too much – a recent example being the planning law. The list of exemptions did not go far enough.

‘We have a legislative diarrhoea. We have over 100 pieces labouring in a queue for drafting. It’s mind-blowing,’ said Deputy Parkinson.

He supported paying politicians because otherwise the only people standing would be those who were financially secure – in essence retired.

He said that the current House was light on people with academic and professional qualifications.

‘While it is entirely proper that people tutored in the university of life should be capable of reaching high office in the States, I think it is clear that the House does not have enough members who are capable of independent critical analysis.’