IN YESTERDAY’S Guernsey Press we provided details of two independent reports commissioned by the States to look into different aspects of its role, one as its function as employer and the other on its adequacy as a planning authority.

And in both cases, the reviewers were brutally frank about the existing system of government, the lack of effective leadership and the tribal, disconnected nature of the new departmental system.

Had the criticism come from just one source, it might have been possible to pass it off as the product of a rogue reviewer.

As it is, the consultants used are acknowledged experts in their own field and have independently come to the same conclusion: that Guernsey’s system of government isn’t fit for purpose.

Like an earlier unrelated look at the management of Education, the conclusion was that while the public and political sectors produced results – often very well – they did so despite the process and procedures in place.

For the island and government, that is rather embarrassing. Having recognised the previous deficiencies and had them articulated via the Harwood report, the States then went on to introduce sweeping reforms designed to bring in joined up government.

Not only has that, according to the two reports, failed the changes have arguably made matters worse.

When government was entrusted to 50-plus committees, the extent of the uncoordination was masked. Now those committees have been aggregated into 10 much bigger departments, the lack of cohesion is much more visible.

What is also more apparent is the absence of leadership. In highlighting that, the reviewers mean that when problems are identified there is very often no way of resolving them – neither the chief minister nor the Policy Council are taking the lead to, say, resolve disputes between Environment and Commerce and Employment or Education and Environment.

What the reports also say is that unless and until there is ministerial or cabinet government and a return to a conseiller/senator-type of island-wide deputy, the system is incapable of improvement.

And that puts the new House in the position of being back to pre-Harwood square one – and having to contemplate the previously unacceptable.