A MARKED reluctance by the minister heading Commerce and Employment, shared by her senior team of officials at the department, to discuss whether an article in the Chamber of Commerce magazine was a ‘plant’ is rather unfortunate – and less than helpful.

For a start, it implies a large measure of guilt: there’s not a denial in sight.

Moreover, if true, it casts doubt on how anyone should regard utterances from the department in the future.

From the day the department announced a review into upskilling Guernsey’s workforce, it has faced criticism. The reason is it has nothing to do with seeking to improve the skills of the island workforce but everything to do with reducing the amount it spends on the GTA University Centre.

There is a need for a review – but it ought to be looking at the value the island as a whole gets from its massive investment in education through the schools, the College of Further Education and in funding further and higher education.

Is it meeting Guernsey’s requirements and those of its employers? What steps are being taken to encourage trained islanders to return here and what is Commerce and Employment doing to ensure there is the right mix of employment available locally for youngsters of all abilities?

Its survey, of course, is concerned with none of these things. It is targeted firmly at an organisation thousands of individuals have used and been satisfied with. Which makes the ‘independent’ article in Contact magazine all the more surprising because it takes such a contrary tone from all the other reaction.

The reason is that it was written by one of the minister’s own staff but did not go out in his name or give a hint of its origin.

That is hugely misleading and it makes a big difference  whether that was intentional or not.

An honest piece from C&E explaining why it felt the earlier criticism was misplaced and unfair would be one thing. Attempting to pass off a biased, damage limitation article as independent reporting would be quite another.

Islanders will draw their own conclusions from the department’s unwillingness to come clean about who commissioned the piece – and why.