IT was perhaps inevitable that with so much attention being focused on parliamentary expense claims in the UK, the subject would, sooner or later, also be highlighted in this Island.

However, whereas politicians have been in the spotlight in the UK as a result of claiming for mortgages that were already paid up or for the cost of cleaning a manorial moat, a senior civil servant – Health chief Mike Pollard – and a request for compensation for missed guitar lessons have hit the headlines here in the Island.

It is fair to say that, whatever it was, Mr Pollard’s claim is not going to bankrupt the exchequer. It is also essential to point out that there is no suggestion that he broke any rules.

That said, the idea already in circulation – that this newspaper dug out the story simply to jump on the UK news bandwagon – is a gross distortion of how matters developed. The issue was of such concern to Deputy Phil Rondel that it prompted him to table a States question which will be asked today. It is, moreover, understood that this will elicit a statement not from Mr Pollard’s immediate political boss, Health Minister Anne Pryke, but from no less a figure than Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.

With evidence of interest at that level, would it really have been appropriate to brush the controversy under the carpet?

In contrast to the murky affairs of the MPs who ‘forgot’ that they had finished paying their mortgages or claimed twice for flat-screen plasma televisions, ‘Guitargate’ is very small beer indeed, but it has drawn attention to some important principles concerning not only what might be appropriate expenses and how they are accounted for, but also in the broader realm of access to official information.

Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf and the chief executive of the States, Bill Ogley, clearly believe that the issues involved are serious enough to warrant a full review of chief officers’ expenses and how they are signed off, plus the publication of past claim details.

The Island’s politicians and civil servants most certainly deserve an acceptable degree of privacy when their private lives and personal affairs are concerned. By and large, they are afforded this, but as members of the executive appear to accept, when the application of funds that come directly from the taxpayer’s pocket is at issue, the public interest is well served only by full openness and transparency.