Bigger problems than 'Plantergate'

THERE is a pattern to States Assemblies.

In the first year they tend to be hopeful and harmonious. All the fresh-faced new deputies are confident they can achieve great things and restore public faith in Guernsey's government.

There also tends to be an esprit de corps among the membership with few big rows over policy or personality spats.

Why all the unnatural harmony? Largely because few major decisions are actually taken during that honeymoon period. Instead, the newly-formed departments are finding their feet and planning their future strategies. So there aren't that many crunch votes for deputies to fall out over.

During years two and three government gets back to business as usual. Something of the initial optimism and determination to avoid destructive disputes remains, but it's starting to wear thin. Alliances form, shift and fracture with deputies getting all passionate over their own personal crusades and frustrated with colleagues who don't seem to share or understand their vision. Some members start to lose faith in each other and bicker.

Then we get to the last year before a general election and the political infighting starts to get rather silly. Each Assembly thinks this won't happen to them, but it always does. Look how tetchy local politics has become recently. Deputy Kevin Stewart rather childishly tearing up a billet at a protest meeting just to show how strongly he opposed the States Traffic Strategy. Education and Treasury and Resources winding themselves up into a good old fashioned inter-departmental spat over La Mare de Carteret School. All very familiar and predictable.

There's even been a call from Deputy Paul Le Pelley for an emergency joint investigation by the Scrutiny Committee and Public Accounts. Not into the demands for many squillions more to be spent on health and social services. Not even into whether the £60m. rebuild of La Mare represents good value for the public purse. Rather it's over the purchase of a few grey plastic flower planters by Public Services. For heaven's sake, where are your priorities Deputy Le Pelley? What next? A Royal Commission into the livery of our bus fleet?

Let me be clear. I don't blame members of the public for getting hot under the collar over the appearance of planters.

It's just that elsewhere the only politicians for whom such an issue would be a top priority would be unpaid parish councillors. Surely our well-paid semi-professional deputies should be more focused on big issues such as the economy, population, demographics, welfare, education and health?

I confess I haven't personally seen those famous planters yet so I can't judge if all the negative comments are justified. But even if they are ugly and overpriced, any political row over them is simply a distraction from bigger issues. If our deputies are becoming so wound up over flower planters they feel the need to launch scathing public attacks across all the media (Deputy Kev again), then we're definitely entering that destructive and unproductive final year before an election.

Talking of Deputy Le Pelley's feeble call for an emergency joint probe into 'Plantergate', this may be a good time to reflect on the activities of Scrutiny and PAC during the first three years of this States.

What to say? They haven't done very much. It saddens me to say so because I am a huge supporter of both functions. Done well, they can really add value and make government better. Alas, they've been toothless tigers during this Assembly.

Scrutiny came in with a roar at the beginning of this political term under the energetic leadership of the late Alderney Representative Paul Arditti. Personally I felt some of that high-octane activity was poorly directed, but by gum you certainly knew that Scrutiny was there. Then came the untimely demise of Mr Arditti and the election of Deputy Rob Jones as the new chair of Scrutiny. After that the committee seemed to go into a long period of hibernation.

More recently they've been reviewing Guernsey's and Alderney's air links with the outside world. An important issue but a difficult one for governments to influence even when they do own their own airline. We'll have to wait and see what emerges from their deliberations, but there are three truisms when it comes to transport links.

Firstly, the bigger your population/economy/tourist industry the better your links will be. The number of potential travellers is the biggest driver of the number of destinations served, the frequency of flights and the keenness of ticket pricing. So by all means look at ways to improve our connectivity, but don't expect it to match Jersey's.

Secondly, for a small island like Guernsey with a limited market, any 'open skies' policy would be utter madness. It would lead to cherry picking and carriers coming in on a seasonal basis to skim off the summer cream when passenger numbers peak. Those carriers who provide real resilience through a genuine commitment to Guernsey would be driven to the wall. Then when the interlopers abandoned us in search of better pickings elsewhere we would find ourselves in the soup.

Thirdly, the local business community will always moan that we need more big players coming to Guernsey and a longer runway. The strange thing is that if our airport was ever privatised and looked for investors in such a speculative venture as a runway extension few of the current complainants would regard it as a risk worth taking. It's easy to be wise with other people's money.

Anyway, enough of air links. Let's get back to our two scrutiny committees and turn our attention to PAC.

If they've been active over the last three years then they are certainly experts in hiding their light under a bushel. And yet they've been operating in a target-rich environment.

Did the financial case for closing St Sampson's Infant and St Andrew's Schools stack up? What about the £60m. project to redevelop La Mare? Or the constant debate over how much Guernsey should spend on health and social services? The pros and cons of universal benefits for pensioners. How much does the cruise liner industry really contribute to the local economy? Were Culture and Leisure right to reject the outsourcing of Beau Sejour? Has the time come to end the monopoly of milk roundsmen?

The list is endless, but what have they done? To the outsider, not much at all. I appreciate their resources are limited and they couldn't have tackled too many of these big issues, but surely one significant review per year wasn't too much to ask?

One thing is certain – if they succumb to Deputy Le Pelley's call to make their big piece of work this year a joint review with Scrutiny into the petty issue of flower planters they will become an utter laughing stock. That would be a shame as their role is an important one, but if the PAC function is to rediscover its relevance it will need to be radically reformed in the next Assembly.