Members’ interests rules ‘are too lax’
Wednesday 10th August 2011, 2:29PM BST.
RULES governing the declaration of States members’ interests are far too lax and lack transparency, according to members of the States Assembly and Constitution Committee.
Sacc vice-chairman Mary Lowe (pictured) said the system was a token gesture and was almost embarrassing when compared with Jersey’s Standing Orders.
The subject formed part of the committee’s agenda at this week’s meeting.
It followed Matt Fallaize’s request to look into the issue after concerns were raised about Health and Social Services minister Hunter Adam’s interest in a company that benefits indirectly from taxpayers’ money.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
[img]http://i53.tinypic.com/25pr60p.jpg[/img]
The Guernsey government today announced that it is changing its emblem from the lions to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government’s political stance….A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed!
Damn, it just doesn’t get more accurate than that!
Report abuse
Isn’t it strange that our Guernsey Reps and their hangers on just love to decry our Jersey and UK counterparts, until they feel the need to want to echo them, when it suits their cause?
My understanding is that the Declaration of States Reps Interests was hashed out in great length, amidst furious (meaning all comers had their say)discussion, when last reviewed. I did in fact look onto the register some while ago, and I could not see that that the Reps had, or needed, an agenda to hide behind.
Report abuse
You know Stone De Croze had the best reply I’ve seen a many a long year.. well done.
he attitudes
But the case in which he replied reminds me of the reason,Namely *Members rules*
One morning a judge appeared in court he asked a little indulgence, and before opening the first case he admitted he had parked wrongly and was therefore guilty, he there upon fined himself £5 for the offence.
The very next case was for exactly the same¨’Wrong parking’
The judge , looking over his glasses, and with a stern voice proclaimed there was far to much of this offence, he named the fact that already this morning a case had been dealt with.
“We must stop this offence becoming habitual; as a lesson to all motorist I will fine you £20 and hope you will learn your lesson.”
Report abuse
Stiletto,
You must be a Guernsey Deputy ???
I am pleased that the SACC are looking at tightening up the existing rules, but like all rules they are only of relevance if they are policed properly and the punishment for infringement acts as a deterrent to those breaking them. As, at present, there is little power behind the policing of them and States members will be the ones voting on them, I don’t see much chance of change in the future.
The only process at present is through the States members code of conduct Panel and we have all seen the total lack of any form of transparency from that Panel,(Mostly because of existing rules) although I believe that the SACC are also looking into the way it operates in the hope of making it more transparent.
Report abuse