WITH the reputation of States members under scrutiny again, this time as a result of what a number of them regard as the equivalent of ‘friendly fire’, it is time to put in a good word for the island’s deputies.

The quality (i.e. alleged lack of it) argument is a comparatively recent development given the 60-year perspective of the emergence of ‘modern’ politics since the end of the Occupation.

Critics will look to the introduction of paid States members as the point of deterioration and it is really only over the last three or four Assemblies that ‘worst States ever’ has come to be bandied around.

But that also coincides with a rapid growth in the complexity of matters that deputies have to deal with and a greatly enhanced expectation of their performance by islanders.

In fact, and in keeping with the time of year, it is difficult not to have sympathy for those politicians who are in the firing line as responsible for multi-million pound departments employing hundreds or thousands of staff.

What background or training do they have to act, in many cases, as executive chairman of something as complex as a plc? And what qualities are needed in someone who emerges as minister?

This is something that the States – however anyone cares to define it – has been poor at tackling. While the States Assembly and Constitution Committee has responsibility for induction training and ongoing support for members, it does not take that very seriously.

Merely getting elected is seen as enough and there is no development programme for deputies or care package for any who are struggling. Nor, of course, is there any thought given to succession planning, which is why general elections create such upheaval.

If whoever the Bailiff was quoting was correct in saying that a tax on the brainpower of deputies would raise nothing, then there is a simple response to it.

What is this community doing to make it easier for those it requires to enter public office so that a brainpower tax would actually be worthwhile?