A lot has been written about the collapse of Blue Islands in the last ten days, and no doubt more is to come out. But now that the initial situation has settled, it’s worth reflecting on some of the broader issues.
One of those is decision-making and assessment of risk. We know that since September of this year, the airline was advanced a further £1.7m of public money. We don’t yet know the terms on which that money was provided, or have sight of the documentation which supported the request, or know what – if any – security was taken to protect against its loss.
It is to be hoped that detail is all provided by the government in due course, not in the spirit of “pointing a finger”, but in an attempt to crystallise whether the process worked to the benefit of the taxpayer, or whether it can be improved.
Importantly, we need to know the circumstances in which that money was provided. Occasionally, important decisions have to be taken quickly, and in imperfect circumstances, such as in the absence of all the information. Clearly, there will be times when some risk needs to be taken in order to prevent worse scenarios becoming reality. Anyone in a position of significant responsibility, or who has managed a developing emergency, will recognise that at times we simply don’t know everything that we need to, but still an important decision needs to be made.
Readers of these columns will also remember calls for our public servants to be empowered, to take more risk on our behalf, without fearing that their every move will lead to public ignominy. A “risk-averse” culture is often cited by those who criticise the government for not doing more to develop our economy, for example.
No one wants our decision-makers to be tied up in procedural red-tape which is intended to protect them against all eventualities – an impossible task – but actually ends up just constraining initiative, and choking off their freedom to act in a timely manner.
Set against that, is the obvious point that there is a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money at stake here, and we have every right to demand that it be spent in a responsible way, that it is protected wherever possible, and only given out in line with strict protocols.
And that the decisions which lead to that are opened up to public scrutiny – precisely so that we can discern where the correct balance of this debate should lie.
