MINISTERS suffer from an identity crisis, to the cost of the island they govern. Unsure whether to take a hands-off approach to policy implementation, or to roll up their sleeves and get involved in the day to day work of their departments, they are sometimes left floating about wondering where all the money is going.

The problem is – and it is one of the few things they all tend to agree on – that they are not really ministers.

The title suggests a certain executive power and position of accountability that does not come with the roles under the current system.

Since the 2004 changes to the machinery of government, the States has toyed with the idea of changing their titles to better reflect their jobs. So what are they? ‘Presidents?’ ‘Statesmen?’ ‘Chair… people?’

This lack of clarity, and the uncertainty it creates over how to behave in the role, leads to times when some could justly be accused of political interference in operational matters, and other times when they don’t even know what the operational matters are.

The most recent example is Health and Social Services minister Hunter Adam’s admission that he did not know that 90 more staff had been taken on.

His saving grace was that as minister he could claim detachment from the actual management processes of hiring and firing.

So what do those with experience of the position think?

Deputy Mary Lowe used to be at the top at Social Security.

‘Ministers have a responsibility to ask questions about operational matters, after all, they are responsible for the finances,’ she said.

‘And if a member of staff says, “I can’t get past my line manager and this or that is not right,” you have a duty to ask questions – the board ought to know if something is wrong.’

However, she said it was essential to pick which cases to take up and which to leave alone.

‘A minister should go into their department once or twice per week. Meetings take place fortnightly, which I suggest is adequate, but at board meetings, as I have always done, if something comes up or I need to ask questions, I will.’

Strong leadership reduced the need for political interfering, she said. ‘If ministers are giving a clear lead where the department is going, they should not need to be in the department all the time.’

It was also up to the minister to provide quality control, she said, and there had been times where she had sent back a report because she considered it inadequate or too expensive.

‘If and when staff get upset by this you have to say: if it was coming out of your pocket, would this paper be before me? Is this good value for money?’

Treasury and Resources minister Charles Parkinson was more anti-interference.

‘Generally, it is bad government for ministers to get involved in operational matters,’ he said.

‘Some do have a tendency to want to roll their sleeves up and get in to apply policy, but normally the role of the board must be to determine policy direction and then give it to the staff who apply it.’

But it was essential for the minister to have a good

knowledge of what went on, he said.

‘When I took the job at Treasury and Resources I organised an induction course. I had been a member for three years but there were three members who were new.

‘It provided an introduction to all aspects of the department’s work, which was essential as we have an extraordinarily large mandate.’

Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet said the balanced approach could be achieved through good relationships with key staff.

‘I always thought of my role, over the last eight years, as being about setting the policy – but in this job there are occasions when you need to get more involved,’ he said.

‘When we had a blow-out at the sewage pumping station, for example, as a minister I needed to be on hand to go and look with the chief officer and decide what needed to be done.

‘But there is a limit to how hands-on you should be.’

Therefore the key, he explained, was developing an understanding.

‘There is no set rule but I think your relationship with your chief officers plays a big part in it,’ he said.

‘The chief officer is really the manager of the department, although Public Services is a little different as we have managers in satellite operations for the airport, Guernsey Water, the harbour, and so on.’

Education minister Carol Steere said ministers should realise they did not always have the technical expertise to provide help.

‘We ministers may be transient, where the staff are there for the long term, and I never saw it as my role to get on Education and suddenly believe I am an educationalist or have the expertise or perspective that they do,’ she said.

‘Of course you take advice from the professional staff you have in your team but you are there to discuss with them, to develop policy – you absolutely need to be able to listen.

‘In education the day to day running of schools is down to

professionals and should not be an area for politicians to get too involved.’

Some issues, she said, became unavoidably political.

She also thought the public were misled by the term

minister.

‘It is ministers who get the flak in the media, where attacks are made – I accept that though.

‘But a minister is part of a team where all five have the same accountability, the same vote.’

With all the effort they go to in promoting Guernsey’s identity and preserving its heritage, it might help if politicians were more sure of their own.

Perhaps the ongoing review of the civil service will bring some more certainty, and perhaps new, more accurate titles.

‘It is a misnomer, and from it comes confusion,’ said Deputy Steere.