THERE are people who knew Christopher Lakeman much better than I did, and who knew him far longer, who are more appropriately placed to offer tribute to him.

All that I can say in response to his tragically young passing is that in my ten years covering the States, he was among the very best of the politicians that I’ve known.

He led the only Privileges and Procedures Committee with a substantial record of achievement, ushering in the ministerial government reforms and the States Members’ code of conduct, among other things.

The former Senator also had enough political instinct and judgment to avoid entirely the composition debates that have paralysed the committees that succeeded it.

And he was one of the best debaters I have seen in the Chamber – and certainly the only one who would drop the odd Shakespeare quote into a debate, and get away with it too.

Most of those qualities are in short supply in the House as it is today, but the quality that I’ll miss most is almost entirely absent – more than almost anyone I’ve known, Christopher Lakeman had the ability to take his work seriously without taking himself too seriously.

While he was a prominent lawyer, actively engaged on committees of inquiry and various important boards and groups, he was also never too busy for a bit of gossip, and was normally, ahem, well-resourced to reciprocate.

When he stepped down from the States before the end of his term, I was not the only one who thought it a shame that ministerial government was deprived of one of the few people with the competence, energy and political judgment to make it really work.

For all of those qualities, and for his good humour and thoughtful nature, he’ll be missed.

A QUESTION – there are usually around 50 questions in a States sitting, but how many of them are vital?

Some people don’t like question time, but I think it offers a bit of insight. It’s the moment when ministers are tested on their briefs, it comes around quickly enough that current problems and stories can be explored and there are occasional explosions.

And it shows up who is sharp enough to spot the killer follow-up, who’s in it just to score points and which ministers are out of their depth when they have to put down their prepared answers and deal with supplementary questions.

My favourite was a question the then-St Lawrence Deputy Deidre Mezbourian asked about sick days very soon after she joined the States, which prompted some astonishing figures and a sheepish response from then-Chief Minister Frank Walker.

But my question on questions was prompted by Deputy Geoff Southern, who apologised to the chair last week after being criticised for asking an oral question and then not sticking around in the Chamber to listen to the answer.

The Deputy had the good grace to put things right as soon as he could, but if he’s asking questions that he’s not that fussed about – and I’m sure that he’s not the only one – there’s a reasonable question to be asked about the amount of time departmental officers have to spend putting the answers together in the first place, isn’t there?

AND while we’re on that subject, States Members spent three days in the Chamber last week, with well over half of the sitting taken up by private Members’ bills that went nowhere.

In the cases of the committee of inquiry proposal by Deputy Bob Hill and the gas pipeline study proposed by Deputy Paul Le Claire, the results were fairly close.

Others, like the minimum wage amendment votes and the suggestion of a replacement day off for the lost Liberation Day holiday, seemed fairly clearly destined for defeat from the moment that they were first lodged.

Given that Members of all sides of the States claim to be up to their eyes in work in their constituencies, in their departments and on their Scrutiny panels, it seems surprising that they’re content to use so much of their time in so unproductive a way.