The public must always have the right to a reply

My point was that in many cases, it is cheaper, easier and makes more sense all round for politicians, backbenchers especially, to ask the questions they want answers to directly to those in charge.

Only if they don’t get the answers, or if the replies throw up something important or it is a matter of huge public importance is it necessary to lodge a proposition.

However, while in theory this all sounds great, in practice anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to our current political system will know that this is all a bit pie in the sky.

In reality, many backbenchers are finding it increasingly difficult to get answers to the questions that they think matter.

Two such examples appeared on my radar this week. The first was a proposition lodged by Deputy Mike Higgins. It concerns the historic abuse redress scheme that was set up to compensate victims of historic child abuse. The details of the scheme were announced by the Chief Minister earlier this year and included up to £60,000 being made available for each of the victims of serious child abuse while in States residential care.

Now historically, this whole area is a bit of a shady one when it comes to getting information from the powers that be – an approach which has fuelled even more grey areas.

But the Deputy is most concerned about the details of the actual scheme, which he says is ‘not totally transparent’. He also says there are allegations that the goalposts regarding compensation are being moved and that some victims will not be paid.

In an ideal world, the Deputy should have been able to find out everything he needs to know by asking those in charge and then taking it from there, seeking to iron out any problems that may arise. In reality, that hasn’t happened. Instead, for whatever reasons, certain aspects of the issue remain shrouded in mystery and questions remain unanswered.

And unanswered questions merely serve as a breeding ground for at best suspicion and at worst conspiracy theories.

So Deputy Higgins had only one option – to bring it to the States for debate. He now wants the scheme kept open past its deadline at the end of this month and any payments that have been made to be interim ones until politicians have debated and agreed the finer details of the scheme.

The Deputy is quite right when he says in his report accompanying the proposition that any failure to be completely open about this scheme will only tarnish further Jersey’s reputation on an issue it has already been accused of being less than transparent about, while at the same time deepening the suspicions of many members of the public. And neither of these things is healthy for the government or the Island as a whole.

Another proposition around at the moment throws up similar issues. Deputy Gerard Baudains is to ask the States to set up a committee of inquiry to look into the circumstances surrounding the resignation in June of Comptroller and Auditor General Chris Swinson.

The move follows Mr Swinson’s resignation in controversial circumstances, the exact nature of which, as the proposition suggests, are not known. What is known is that somewhere along the line it involves Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf, the Lime Grove saga and subsequent fall-out and allegations that Mr Swinson’s report on the States failure to buy Lime Grove House for a new police station was inaccurate, biased and wrongly critical of Senator Ozouf.

Again, the questions have been asked (I know, because I have asked many of them too) but no real answers have ever been given.

Instead, the Chief Minister backed his Treasurer and told us all to ‘draw a line under it’, a few people had a pop at Mr Swinson and a few others had a pop back at them.

Accusations flew from both sides, everyone claimed they were telling the truth and the poor public were left confused, frustrated and in the dark about a matter which, no one can deny, is of huge public importance given the important role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has now, wrongly or rightly, been undermined.

NOW it is not often that I find myself in wholehearted support of Deputy Baudains, but this time he really has got it right. It is wrong to leave so many important questions unanswered.

He is equally right when he says in his report: ‘Watching the Council of Ministers evading questions and trying to bully their way out during States Question Time on 10 July 2012 was not a pretty sight.’

They did, and it wasn’t.

And, in that vein, Deputy Baudains is just as correct to say that the only authority with a chance of getting some answers now is a committee of inquiry. (Whether their findings would be taken as fact by all, however, is another matter).

I am not a fan of such inquiries, because they are complicated, time-consuming, costly and completely unnecessary. It is far more preferable for our ministers – those with the power – to get to the bottom of matters such as this urgently (by that, I mean weeks ago), answer the questions and let the public know the truth and what happens from there.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. Instead, we are told to ‘draw a line under it and move on’.

But that is unsatisfactory. Not only does a statement like that fail to give the public the respect, openness and honesty they deserve, it also means that our government is unlikely ever to learn from its mistakes if no one truly knows when and how a mistake has been made, whichever side of the fence it may have been on, or whether any mistakes even occurred at all.

But most of all, unanswered questions – whether they point to cover-ups, mistakes or failings or nothing at all – merely fuel distrust, suspicion and conspiracy theories, none of which is healthy for government or the Island as a whole.