AN ADMISSION yesterday by the Health and Social Services minister that he had no idea his department had taken on the equivalent of 90 extra staff raises the most serious questions about the role of politicians and whether there is any control over civil servants.

It also means there are significant doubts about the role of those elected by the States to form the HSSD political board.

Of all the departments, Health officials – certainly under the former chief officer – most vehemently tried to stop deputies from becoming involved in day-to-day ‘operational’ matters.

Leave that to us, politicians were told. You stick to strategy.

We can all have some respect for that: non executives should not seek to become executives for many reasons.

Yet when Bill Bell ran Public Services, not a vacancy was filled unless he was satisfied it could be justified and headcount fell as a result. Similarly at Commerce and Employment, the minister believes that one of her foremost duties is safeguarding public money.

Yet at HSSD, the minister isn’t even made aware when questions are being asked about his department apparently taking on an additional 90 employees at the same time as making cuts because it is so short of money.

The minister and political board are all decent individuals attempting to do a difficult job to the best of their ability yet they are now left looking rather foolish, certainly if they are supposed to be exercising any scrutiny/control function on behalf of the electorate (and if they don’t, who does?)

Just why they are left looking ineffectual is another question. Are other boards more adept at keeping a lid on embarrassing material? Do they have officials more willing to providing early warning of potential banana skins?

A clue might be found in the source of the criticism of HSSD: Treasury and Resources. It is difficult not to detect a note of frustration from Guernsey’s ‘chancellor’ in telling HSSD to get its act together.

Such comment is rare in the hands-off world of the States and all the more notable for that.

The real point, which the Health minister must address, is why his cash-strapped department can add £3m. to its payroll costs without anyone apparently noticing – or caring.