Review report is positively excellent... almost

THERE'S a lot going on politically at the moment.

As I'm sometimes accused of being too negative about the States, I'll start on a positive note. The policy letter dealing with the complex issue of reorganising the way Guernsey's government works is excellent. Firstly it's a model of clarity and plain English, making it easy to read and absorb. More importantly, the logic it applies to the vast majority of the issues it addresses can't be faulted.

If I wanted to nit-pick (and that's my job), then I do disagree with some details of the proposals. That's almost inevitable, given the scope of the report. Indeed, it's something of a wonder that the Review Committee has managed to achieve unanimity among its diverse membership.

So what are my quibbles with this seminal report?

Firstly, I would have preferred to see a slightly bigger reduction in the number of deputies. Thirty States members elected in three or four large constituencies would have been a big step forward in my view. That said, what is proposed – moving from 45 deputies to 38 – is probably more deliverable. Getting turkeys to vote for Christmas is hard enough, without asking them for

a ringing endorsement of thanksgiving as well.

To be fair, there are also genuine concerns that too small an Assembly could lead to insufficient checks and balances, with the 'top politicians' able to bulldoze through whatever policies they want. I don't see that as an issue until you get down to a much smaller parliament and nor is it the experience of other territories, but I respect those with legitimate worries. Shrinking your government is quite a radical step and it's natural that many would prefer a gradualist approach. So 38 deputies is certainly a step in the right direction, but I hope it's an issue which can be revisited within the next 10 years.

I also agree with the report when it says that deputies shouldn't necessarily be paid more if there are fewer of them. Very rarely since the early years following the Occupation has our States had to ask for so many sacrifices from the Guernsey population as it's having to do at the moment. That makes it an ideal time to lead by example. Before always asking for more from Mr and Mrs Le Page, they should try to find ways to cut the costs of government without impacting on services. And where better to start than with the total salary bill for Guernsey's politicians?

Another of my niggles with the report is that it side-steps the issue of whether there should one or two Alderney Representatives in the new, smaller, assembly. That question needs consideration, particularly now that the Alderney Representatives, rightly, fully participate in and vote on every debate. Very different from the traditional stance of only voting on those issues of special interest to Alderney.

That's fine, but surely the other side of the coin of this new engaged approach is that Alderney should have pro-rata representation in the States of Guernsey. That would probably mean dropping to one member, although there would also need to be a system of alternates to make sure the island was always represented.

Then we come to the committee structure. Hurrah that the States has finally realised that strategic policy co-ordination and resource allocation are two sides of the same coin and need to be brought together. I've been warning ever since the last review of government that the nonsense of separating them would create unnecessary conflict and with it governmental paralysis. The creation of a Policy and Resources Committee will overcome that – if it attracts the right membership.

Elsewhere, the new, slimmer committee structure makes sense, although I could argue with the exact allocation of some responsibilities.

For example, setting up a Committee for the Environment and Infrastructure and then taking land use policy away from it seems very odd. Creating a new, stand-alone panel to determine planning applications is sensible, but then it should focus purely on doing that and not get involved in policy formation.

Perhaps the most encouraging recommendation in the report is for a new-style scrutiny system with more power and independence. The idea of a small scrutiny management committee which can draw on other deputies and those outside the States to make up one-off investigation panels is a huge step forward on the current set-up.

I preferred the original proposal for a management committee of just three, but perhaps it's felt that would leave the scrutiny agenda in too few hands.

The report is also correct to recommend that the president of Scrutiny should be barred from sitting on any principal committee. That's the only way it can be truly independent. I would go further and apply that rule to all three deputies. The current situation, where the chair of PAC is also deputy minister of the biggest-spending States department, is a farce.

I'm really excited by the prospect of a new, reinvigorated scrutiny process which could really add value to government and make it better.

But the key will be for the scrutiny process to have sufficient standing to attract able and experienced deputies to the management committee.

It's almost enough to make me lose my head and consider standing for the States next year in order to get involved.

Time for a cold shower to come back to my senses!

Or, as an alternative reality check, I could close with a few words on last week's debate over La Mare de Carteret. There were two almost equal camps. One said 'decide where you are going on secondary education before spending another £60m.'. The other said 'the children at La Mare have waited long enough'. And then there were a few floaters.

Both camps were valid and the ensuing deep political division predictable, but was the fudged outcome the right way forward? It may have healed a rift in the States, but that isn't really the point. Asking local building firms to tender for two alternative schemes where one definitely won't be built, and quite possibly neither will, is a travesty of good practice.

Meanwhile, Education will bring a report on secondary (and hopefully tertiary) education by next March. They really ought to be castigated for not doing so as promised in 2014. It's almost guaranteed that this eve-of-election debate will have a close outcome. So whichever way it goes, the new States will probably revisit the issue, thus extending the unavoidable but unsettling period of uncertainty.

Far from ideal.