PUBLIC and political opinion on the ending of the airport firefighters’ dispute is, broadly, poles apart. Islanders are pleased that aircraft are operating normally and deputies are deeply unhappy with the way the settlement was achieved.

Where there is probably more common ground is over the absence of any contingency planning to maintain fire cover in the event of industrial action.

The States negotiators, the Public Sector Remuneration Committee,  appears to have had no plan B in the event of protracted negotiations turning sour. It was a mistake.

That and what has become known as a shadow meeting of the Emergency Powers Authority are just two reasons why there needs to be a full public inquiry into this whole matter.

Whether that envisaged by the Scrutiny Committee will be up to the task is, however, a different matter.

That panel seems intent on reviewing written evidence from the various parties and that simply will not be good enough.

There are enough subtleties and nuances in this already – HM Comptroller’s initial ruling that an extra £4,000 a year for the firefighters was not ‘pay’ among them – that can only properly be addressed if witnesses can be compelled to attend and then subject to detailed cross-examination.

In reaching his decision, which was critical to the legal authority used by ministers to resolve the dispute, did he, for instance, ask how the £4,000 was to be paid?

Receiving a lump sum at the end of the 12-month period, the recruitment and retention package is to run would be one thing.

Learning that the men were to receive it on a weekly basis in their next pay packet would be quite another.

And asking why such a question wasn’t put (if, indeed, it was not) would also be illuminating.

Guernsey already has legislation in place to deal with matters of ‘urgent public importance’ and to ensure sufficiently skilled interrogators are used.

And that is why this is a matter for a formal tribunal of inquiry, and not just Scrutiny.