Fact Check: the Bends in Victoria Avenue

"I orchestrated our major road resurfacing scheme, which still continues and created efficiencies in the bus (Connex) and rank taxi services. For clarification, I supervised Victoria Avenue Phase One maintenance, but I was no longer Minister for construction of the subsequent Westbound “bendy sections” (Guy de Faye)

Guy de Faye’s statement is technically true in terms of timing, but it does not remove his political responsibility for the overall scheme. Here is the evidence and the correct interpretation, based strictly on sourced material.

What the evidence shows

1. Guy de Faye’s own statement (from Vote.je)

He explicitly says:

“I supervised Victoria Avenue Phase One maintenance, but I was no longer Minister for construction of the subsequent Westbound ‘bendy sections’.”Vote.je

This is accurate in terms of dates. According to the official record, he served as Minister for Transport and Technical Services from December 2005 to December 2008. Wikipedia

He lost his seat in the 2008 election, meaning he was not Minister when later phases were physically constructed. 

2. But the bends were designed during his tenure

The States Assembly statement on the Victoria Avenue project confirms:

• The project required realignment of the carriageway.
• The design and early‑phase decisions were made during the period when de Faye was Minister.

Design Philosophy & Alignment: The overarching resurfacing and realignment scheme was planned by the Transport and Technical Services (TTS) department while Guy de Faye was Minister (2005–2008). A 2007 highway survey identified the route as needing essential repairs, and the subsequent multi-phase project was developed as a "planned resurfacing, realignment and renovation."

Design happens before construction.

The “bendy sections” were part of the design phase, which took place while he was still Minister.
So is his claim true?  True in the narrow, technical sense:

• He was not Minister when the westbound bends were built.
• Construction happened after he left office.
• The next Minister could have altered the design rather than following it through.  But was that likely?

Not true in the broader, political sense. He was Minister when:

• the design philosophy was chosen,
• the alignment changes were developed,
• the realignment was approved internally

The bends were designed under his ministerial oversight, even if they were constructed after he left.

This is why his recent claim sounds like distancing: He is referring only to the construction phase, not the design phase where the key decisions were made.

Final verdict

Yes, his statement is factually correct about timing because he was not Minister when the bends were physically built. But the bends were designed, approved and set in motion during his tenure, and the consultation failure also occurred under his watch.

Internal Approvals: The strategic intent to realign the road, which is often cited as the cause of the later "bendy" sections, was part of the department's capital resurfacing programme that de Faye supervised. He personally signed off on Phase 1 in June 2008, which set the technical and aesthetic precedent for the subsequent phases.

Why "Distancing" is a Fair Comment

While de Faye is technically correct that he did not sign the final construction contracts for Phase 2 (September 2009) or Phase 3 (January 2010), his defence overlooks the following: 

• Continuity of Design: Civil service teams generally execute the plans approved by previous ministers unless a new minister explicitly orders a redesign.[1, 2]. And that would cost money!
• Strategic Ownership: The decision to change the road's footprint to create bus and taxi efficiencies (which he takes credit for) is the same decision that required the physical realignments (the "bends") he now avoids.

In short, here we see a classic political distinction: he claims the benefits of the policy (efficiencies) while disclaiming the physical consequences (the bends) of the designs developed during his tenure.