Changing direction

THERE'S no doubt that in recent years the Guernsey States has developed a real problem in delivering large, controversial capital projects.

I'm not talking about projects that go wrong and run well over budget like the New Jetty or Beau Sejour - although that's clearly an issue, too. Rather, I'm thinking of things like the airport runway and waste disposal, where something clearly needs to be done urgently, but our government doesn't even seem able to agree a way forward. Or else it does agree and then keeps changing its mind.

Opinions will be divided over whether that failing is down to the sponsoring committee or is the fault of the rest of the deputies. Perhaps it could even be the public who act unreasonably by demanding that these big civil engineering projects satisfy their every environmental, safety and cost requirement and surf the web to find their own alternative solutions. Whatever the truth, this appalling procrastination is both worrying and expensive.

I won't dwell on my opinion on the best way forward for either waste disposal or runway reconstruction, but instead I'll focus on the process.

As we know, the States has twice been out to tender for waste plants - and selected contractors - only to change its mind at a cost of many millions. This is particularly puzzling as the States had first agreed very clear criteria in an attempt to avoid tendering for a plant that would later prove to be politically unacceptable.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that deputies were either too immune to public opinion at the start of the process or too susceptible to it at the end. Possibly both. Either way, if the current marathon consultation concludes that some sort of incinerator is needed to deal with Guernsey's residual waste, it's hard to see leading manufacturers queuing up to tender.

It now seems as if we could see a very similar scenario being played out over the airport runway. The States agreed a way forward. It went out to tender. It selected a preferred contractor. But now a significant tranche of deputies is arguing for a totally different solution involving collapsible concrete.

I know little about such engineering issues or whether EMAS is preferable to grass run-offs. What I do know is that it would have been a whole lot better to reach a firm conclusion over the best way forward at the start of the process and stick to it, rather than all this constant changing of minds. Guernsey is at risk of wasting yet more money - which is in pretty scarce supply these days - and making itself a laughing stock at the same time.

Why have we suddenly become so amateurish at dealing with these big projects? It doesn't seem to be the case nearly so much with almost equally large but more cuddly things, such as schools and hospitals, so it appears the problem is more political than technical. Perhaps it's as simple a thing as Deputy Bernard Flouquet being a less formidable political operator than his predecessor Roger Berry. True, the latter left his fingerprints on a few big overspends, but it's very hard to see him suffering so many defeats over core infrastructural projects as the current PSD minister.

At times, a strong politician is needed to drive through unpopular but necessary developments and perhaps Deputy Flouquet simply hasn't got what it takes.

Alternatively, maybe it is us. As a community, we love complaining and perhaps we snipe so much at the States that we have induced paralysis in all of the more controversial areas of government. After all, we protest if an 'eyebrow house' is replaced, a pub is allowed to go out of business or flumes are decommissioned, so what chance have an airport runway or an incinerator at £80m. each?

I suppose the real answer is that we need politicians who can take the flack and still deliver positive outcomes.

I'm certainly not saying that islanders shouldn't campaign about things they feel strongly about or that deputies shouldn't change their minds if they become convinced they've got it wrong. What I'm saying is that the arguments should ideally take place early on in the process and then, once millions have already been committed, our government should stick by its guns unless it's very clear that it is going down the wrong path.

Changing course occasionally is a sign of strength. Doing so constantly is a sign of weakness, as well as being very expensive indeed.