COMMENT: We need our scrutineers to ask why with all the persistence of a toddler

IT was inevitable that the time would come, but all of a sudden without warning it has – my two-year-old has entered the ‘why’ stage.

‘Archie, time to put your shoes on.’ ‘Why?’

‘Because I said so.’ ‘Why?’

‘Because we are going out and it’s raining.’ ‘Why?’

‘Because we said we’d meet grandad at the park.’ ‘Why?’

‘Becau- hang on, I am not doing this any more.’

And so on, 12 times every half an hour.

I try my best to explain why when I think there is a genuine question to be answered. We’ve covered speed limits, tides, clouds, airport security, why we
go out to work but his grandparents
don’t, why you can’t eat chocolate buttons for breakfast and why the cat’s tuna isn’t the same as the stuff he likes with mayo in a sandwich.

Some of it I can explain easily and with conviction, but sometimes there are questions that get me asking why, too.

So it got me thinking – are enough whys being asked in Jersey, specifically within the States?

Why does everyone hate the Waterfront, which this week Environment Minister Steve Luce said was based on a boring and ‘too prescriptive’ masterplan, and why does no one go there?

Why are we still no further to addressing the big population questions than we were when the States set them
as a strategic priority in 2014?

Why are children still having to wait
so long to see a dentist at the Hospital?

Why has the issue of staffing at Education been allowed to get almost to crisis point and what other concerns are hiding under the carpet in one of our most important departments?

Why is the e-gov programme still causing problems to the extent that the Chamber of Commerce now needs to
have regular meetings with the team running it?

Why the delay in the introduction of same-sex marriage when, as Advocate Barbara Corbett says, the law changes would have been implemented much
more quickly in the financial sector?

Why does the long-term solution to plugging the £15 million black hole at Health (not created by it but still there because the States last year rejected proposals for a new health charge) have to be funded using some kind of new tax?

And have all aspects of proposals for the new waste charge on businesses been properly thought through?

These are all questions raised by news stories this past week.

They are some big questions which are part of even bigger issues and with potentially even bigger implications for an awful lot of people.

Consider also that there’s always a whole lot more going on behind the scenes than we know about or that is being reported on in a given week, and it’s likely that the list of questions is not just lengthy but never ending.

Which is exactly why a strong government needs, and thrives on, effective scrutiny.

Our Scrutiny panels have in recent years shaken off a somewhat poor public image from the years previously and gained some important public respect. And after next May, when the new House is elected, that process needs to continue.

There is no shame in candidates wanting to serve on the back benches and scrutinise – it’s a crucial part of government and just as important in many respects as being part of the ministerial team.

Just as the best assemblies are diverse in the ages, sex, beliefs, backgrounds and experiences of their members, so too are they in the kind of politicians they include.

We need leaders, deputies, organisers, thinkers, great orators and so much more in between.

And we need scrutineers capable of asking as many questions with as such commitment and persistence as a two-year-old.

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –