Select a region
Deputy Gavin St Pier gives his thoughts on the States' latest debate:
The States has finally cleared its arrears of business, aided by the absence of any questions and the presence of only one statement.
The statement was the annual one from an Alderney Representative – this time Steve Roberts – providing an update on the States of Alderney. The replacement of known Riduna-philes from Policy & Resources (P&R) with the arch-sceptic, Deputy Trott, will understandably be causing nervousness in the streets of St Anne, particularly amongst those who believe Alderney’s future is dependent on a longer runway. This nervousness was reflected in the statement.
The most substantive debate of the meeting was that which arose from the policy letter on the Government Work Plan (GWP). No-one was quite bold enough to say that its preparation was a waste of time because that might understandably demoralise the many civil servants who have devoted hundreds of hours to its preparation. But given its debate is seven months overdue, the absence of any discernible impact from that delay says quite a lot about how much this document is really driving the business of government. The language in debate, even from those presenting it to the Assembly, sounded more like weak justification for its existence than full-throated endorsement and heartfelt conviction in the GWP’s value. This was further evidenced by the fact that there was very little debate on the substance of the GWP or the propositions laid by the previous P&R.
All the focus was on the fallout from the debates of the Funding & Investment Plan and Budget that twice failed to agree funding for the TGI, which had nothing much to do with the content of the GWP policy letter. The attention was on the ‘white knight’ amendment from the new P&R President to salvage the building of The Guernsey Institute (TGI). This managed to magic up funding, principally from more optimistic future corporate tax receipt forecasts. Whether those forecasts prove to be accurate matters not, as by the time the evidence comes in, the present P&R will be history and TGI will have been built anyway. Deputy Peter Ferbrache showed some scepticism at this turn of events. His irritation was graciously not turned on the politicians but on the civil servants who had repeatedly and insistently advised his committee, despite repeated challenge, that Deputy Charles Parkinson was wrong in frequently asserting that P&R’s assumptions on corporate tax receipts were too low.
It may well be that Deputy Trott is just lucky and the numbers really did move significantly between Deputy Ferbrache’s defenestration and the TGI amendment. However, it should not be forgotten that advice is rarely black or white. There are normally a range of options and outcomes giving many (may be fifty) shades of grey. Impartial and professional though civil servants are, they will give politicians the evidence to support the answers the politicians are looking for, if they can. A narrative of revenues under pressure underpinned the previous P&R’s case for the introduction of GST, so a more cautious view on corporate tax receipts would be justifiable. The political need to find a solution that allowed TGI to proceed, perhaps justified a more optimistic view on those same receipts, in which event, the more likely explanation of the shift in positions, is reliance on the old adage, ‘you make your own luck.’
A relatively short policy letter from the Committee for Home Affairs (HA) making the case for an increase in the fines from fixed penalty notices, produced one of those frustrating debates that focusses little on the proposal. Instead, it provided another chance to talk about noisy motorbikes and object to the level of fine for particular offences, such as dog littering or riding a bike without a light, but without any amendments to address any concerns. A debate that may be interesting but goes nowhere.
There was a similar debate on the annual reports of the Police Complaints Commission (PCC), albeit that the motion under which these types of report are debated, is only ever ‘to note’ them. So there can be no amendments to deliver a different policy direction or legislative outcome. They really can only ever be an opportunity to raise the profile of or put the spotlight on an issue. Deputy Leadbeater made effective use of this opportunity by drawing attention to the differences in the number of complaints lodged against Guernsey’s police force compared to comparable forces. The failure, so far, to amend the legislation which governs the role of the PCC, to give it more teeth after 10 years’ operation, despite all parties – HA, the police and the PCC themselves - recognising that reform is needed, also came out in debate. The insufficiency of resources was, once again, cited as the explanation. In the absence of a champion, a crisis or pressure of some other sort, this kind of issue risks languishing at the bottom of the ‘to do’ pile for years as more pressing day-to-day operational matters take priority.
A policy letter from the States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee (SACC) on preparations for the June 2025 General Election, provided an opportunity to debate the vagaries of our unique Island Wide Voting (IWV) electoral system. There was never a cat-in-hell’s chance of this Assembly, having been elected by this system, voting to reform, let alone abolish IWV. And so it proved. The Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC’s) had produced an excellent analysis of the challenges in reconciling the electorate’s apparent desire for the irreconcilable objectives of both IWV and an easier way to select up to 38 candidates from a pool of 100 or more. The idea of ‘rolling’ elections to select a proportion of the Assembly as a possible solution cut little mustard. There were two principal arguments against. Firstly, that there had only been one election. In other words, evidence of failure is needed before acting, rather than attempting to mitigate the risks of failure from, for example, significant voter abstention. Secondly, because the system had been adopted by referendum so, it was argued, can only be changed by referendum. In consequence, the next election will be conducted using exactly the same rules as the last one, bar a few tweaks agreed around limits and reporting on expenses. Only time will tell whether that election is capable of producing a less dysfunctional Assembly than the present one.
