PERHAPS inevitably, the absence of New Year’s Honours for Guernsey – the second time it has happened – reopens the debate over how and who decides which islanders are worthy of recognition.

A quick look at those who received accolades in Jersey and the Isle of Man suggests that this island has equally deserving individuals and, although these are personal awards, they also reflect strongly on the communities in which they are received.

That is one reason why islanders were so pleased that the Bailiff gained his knighthood – it was as much a special honour for Guernsey as it was for him.

Also inevitable is the questioning of why awards are not made and the suspicion that someone’s face does not fit. Despite the UK reforming the honours process in 2005, those concerns still exist, not least for the Crown Dependencies.

Unlike the UK’s other overseas territories, which put nominations in via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Guernsey’s are filtered by the Ministry of Justice before going on for further scrutiny – and it is that which causes the concern.

For all that the honours system reforms are supposed to have introduced more independence and clarity, there is a feeling that for small territories, that change has fallen at the first fence.

The headline purpose of an honour, according to the government, is that they are given to people from all walks of life and all sections of society who have made a difference to their community.

For all the skills of the honours team, who carry out the vetting, trying to assess the difference an individual has made in Guernsey versus, for instance, the Home Counties will be very difficult – and probably to the island’s disadvantage.

In other words, it is the people here who put forward the nominations who are best placed to judge the community contribution someone has made, not a Whitehall civil servant.

What is needed is more certainty in the process and less risk of a jaundiced eye failing to recognise the difference between a population of 60,000 and 600,000.

It is one argument for saying the Crown Dependencies ought to have a quota so that they can decide who warrants an honour rather than a faceless bureaucrat who has never even visited them.