THE recent motion of no confidence in the Public Accounts Committee shows just how uncomfortable such procedures can be within small legislatures, serving small communities.

Of course, former deputy Bill Green’s description of the States as ‘an exclusive club’ is even more inappropriate today than it was 30 years ago.

However, there’s no doubt that working closely with parliamentary colleagues inevitably builds a degree of esprit de corps.

It’s true that one or two deputies seem to regard politics as a blood sport and enjoy savaging other members – or even civil servants. But most find it very hard to be blunt about other members’ shortcomings, even when such criticisms are justified.

They really ought to overcome that natural tendency not to want to upset those they work/sit alongside. Deputies’ first responsibility is to the island as a whole. While ‘witch hunting’ is obviously despicable, there are questions of competence that need to be addressed occasionally. Done properly, this should be possible without nastiness or slurs on other deputies’ characters.

Of course, some politicians’ skins are remarkably thin. While spats driven by personality politics are very ugly, and distract from the real work, no one should feel hurt by another member questioning their judgement. Judgement is subjective – by definition – so it’s inevitable that others will occasionally be convinced you’ve got it badly wrong.

I don’t know Deputy Martin Storey, but was genuinely nonplussed by the depth of his ‘hurt’ reaction to the motion of no confidence in PAC. If he was so devastated by a suggestion that he made a major error of political judgement by boycotting a States debate, then I hate to think how he would react to a more wounding allegation.

Given enough time in politics most deputies will, alas, find themselves being accused of acting from the wrong motives, misleading the States or something else which really does reflect on their character. That’s the time to feel righteous anger – unless the allegation is justified.

Generally I dislike the more bullying and less collaborative nature of politics these days and I think that unchecked it might deter good candidates. Nevertheless, I can’t help wondering – with all respect to Deputy Storey – if someone who bruises quite so easily is in the right trade.

The debate also showed how skewed people’s perception of the States can be when they only have experience of a couple of departments. For instance, there was Deputy Paint’s suggestion that very few politicians would ever experience the ultimate stress that goes with being PAC chairman. Obviously the role is important but it certainly isn’t very high up in the list of the States’ most demanding jobs.

Being brutally honest, the role of PAC chairman has appeared to be something of a sinecure hitherto because of the way it operates. Decide what you want reviewed, pay consultants to do it, then present the finished piece of work to the States. Little more than a conduit, really.

Of course that was PAC’s initial approach on the good governance report as well, but now they have been told to work up some detailed proposals themselves. This will be their first real test of political ability. It’s clearly a matter which they feel falls within their area of competence or else they wouldn’t have embarked on the project.

Are they up to it? They have until the end of the year to show us.

Another question to come out of the PAC debate is whether a vote of no confidence should be possible in a chairman but not their committee. Clearly there were some deputies who wanted to single out the chairman on this last occasion. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on why that option doesn’t exist in the rules.

Some years ago there was an unfortunate spate of wannabe political leaders undermining their own committees from within. The tactic they used was effective and virtually risk-free – persuade their colleagues that new leadership is desirable and promote a vote of no confidence in their president. Whatever way the vote went, their own position wasn’t on the line but if the president [minister] was dumped then naturally they could stand for the position.

The Rules of Procedure Committee of the time decided the best way to curb such shabby internal coups was to ensure that if a president was dumped then his members too had to face reselection by the States. That was usually enough to focus the mind of any would-be ‘Brutus’.