Building up to a grand finale

THE States meeting of March 2016 is building up to be a huge one.

We already knew the seminal debate on the future of secondary and tertiary education had been slated for that month, but now the States seem determined to add lots more items to an already busy agenda. In last week's meeting alone they called for an independent report on the Leopardess project and another report on possible compensation for milk retailers, both to be completed by March next year.

I can understand why such a timescale was proposed. Anything shorter would be unrealistic. Anything longer would be seen as kicking the can down the road, ducking the issues and letting the new States take those difficult decisions. (A bit like PSD over waste?) But if they timetable too much extra business for their last-ever meeting then deputies had better take their camp beds into the Assembly.

Let's consider the two new items that were added to the agenda for March as a result of last week's debate.

Firstly, the independent review of the proposal to buy a replacement vessel for the Leopardess from a shipyard in Holland. A few weeks ago in this column I was calling for the Public Accounts Committee to set up a truly independent review of both the need for a new fisheries protection vessel and the procurement route followed by Commerce and Employment.

I suggested that this would either confirm the proposals as correct or else suggest a properly researched alternative approach. Both outcomes would be better than an ill-informed debate full of allegation and counter-allegation. It would also allow those aggrieved by the C&E proposals to be fully heard.

Blow me, but last week the chair of PAC persuaded the States to instruct C&E to initiate such an 'independent' review of their own proposals. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's a deeply flawed approach. By dodging the workload and instead passing it on to the department, Deputy Soulsby has ensured that any report that comes back will be seen – rightly or wrongly – as tainted.

That might not be too bad if it's critical of the initial proposals, but if it's supportive you can just hear the criticism now. 'It's a whitewash.' 'Of course it supports C&E, after all they hand-picked the review team and gave them their terms of reference.' 'They would say that, wouldn't they?' Cue exactly the same sort of tetchy, ill-informed debate as would have happened without any third party report at all.

How much better if PAC had taken control and set up a review panel comprised of a couple of their committee members and a couple of outside experts. The whole process would have been seen to be patently independent. The outcome might not have pleased everybody, but the governance would have been spot-on. But it seems such an obviously necessary and sensible process was too much work for our hard-pressed PAC. Anyway, they believe that carrying out such public reviews is an 'outdated approach to scrutiny'. I despair.

Moving on to compensation for milk retailers, I think we have a similar problem.

Personally, I am convinced of two things. 1. The States were right to allow the dairy to sell directly to commercial customers; 2. There should be some modest compensation to milkmen for the loss of their protected position.

We know that C&E agree on the first point but they are adamantly opposed to any compensation. That's a matter of public record which throws up obvious problems with asking them to report back with any options for such compensation.

The reasons for their opposition seem to be twofold. The first is the claim that there was never any firm legal basis for the supposed exclusivity that milk rounds enjoyed and which gave them their inherent value. The second concern is the danger of setting a precedent.

The first argument may be true, but it's still undeniable that for very many decades there has been a tacit understanding between the States and the milkmen that only those owning milk rounds could deliver milk. So government has been complicit in creating and maintaining a system that created a commercial value to owning a round. Now they have (rightly) unilaterally decided to dismantle that system by giving themselves the right to supply all their plum customers directly.

Does that give them a legal responsibility to compensate? No.

Does it give them as a decent government of a small community a moral imperative to do so? I think so.

Not at a level that will hit the taxpayer, but at a level which can quickly be repaid out of the savings the dairy will make through such changes in distribution.

As for the argument about precedent, it's hard to see which other groups could face the same situation.

The only one I can think of offhand is taxi drivers, should the States ever decide to remove the exclusive rights which owning a taxi plate provide and which gives those plates their value. If that did happen then again, some appropriate compensation would probably be justified.

I can't leave my review of last week's States meeting without mentioning the Sunday Trading debate.

Enough has probably already been said about the outcome, but the process – in particular the use of the States guillotine to stop some people speaking –was deeply flawed.

You get the feeling it was less about cutting short a debate where it had all been said and more about, 'we've been sitting here for four days, we're all completely knackered and we want to go home'.

If so, that's appalling.

Yes, the interminable States proceedings need to be cut shorter, but this is the wrong tool to do it. Instead the States Assembly and Constitution Committee should revisit an idea first put forward by former deputy Rex Birch – a limit on the length of speeches.

As someone who was known for the odd overly long oration, perhaps I'm the wrong person to suggest it.

But times have moved on and the business of the States increased, so I genuinely think such a restriction may be needed.

Obviously exceptions would have to be made for those proposing or replying to debates, but for ordinary contributions what about a limit of 10 minutes?

Sadly, that may curtail some cracking, long but entertaining contributions full of facts, persuasive arguments, polemic and stirring oratory. Despite that drawback a time limit must be a better option than carrying on the way we are.

Nothing could possibly be worse than debates, about as interesting as watching girders rust, which grind on and on and eventually lead to unwise guillotines just to finish the business of the meeting.