Pre-school debate raises many questions

WHAT a farcical situation the States have got themselves into over the funding of pre-school education.

They vote for the introduction of 15 hours of universal free provision, but without identifying any way to fund it. They then send the Education and Treasury Departments away to find the best way to pay for it. The two political boards can't agree, so the whole matter has to come back before the States for them to break that deadlock.

This whole circus raises two very different questions.

The first is whether the benefits of universal, pre-school education are such that Guernsey should make its provision an absolute top priority. Should the States find the cash by hook or by crook, even if other areas of public spending have to suffer to achieve that during what are undeniably straightened financial times?

I'll return to that question, but there are even bigger ones to answer first. Is this any way to go about the business of government? Can it be sensible or responsible to vote in favour of projects without any clear idea where the money is going to come from? Aren't such 'in-principle' debates, where the funding issues are parked for another day, just a clever way to bypass any process of prioritising revenue expenditure?

I have no doubt that when the Assembly is asked to arbitrate on this issue Education Minister Robert Sillars will remind them that they have already voted in favour of the project. He will be right. They did so overwhelmingly – subject to the funding being identified. No one can blame States members for that, as pre-school funding is a jolly good thing. But there is an inherent problem with such an approach to politics.

Surely the States would equally, and without hesitation, have voted in favour of an extra million pounds per year being spent on cancer treatments – subject to the funding being identified? Or a 20% increase in the old age pension if the cash could be found? I could go on, but you get my drift. It's all too easy to vote blithely in favour of motherhood and apple pie projects if you don't look at the downside of funding it.

I know some people react angrily to anyone pointing out the financial realities and suggest that 'there are some things more important than money'.

But the fact remains that the same pound can't be spent twice. New services tend to mean either cutting existing ones or raising taxes – something which the 'it's not all about money' brigade also tends to get upset about.

Others will suggest that such farcical impasses are an inevitable consequence of our system of government. That the absence of any central, overriding, executive body in the Assembly is a recipe for interdepartmental clashes. After all, if every department is equal and independent, subject only to the authority of the States as a whole, the only way any political disagreement can be resolved is through messy, full-scale debates. Those who argue that way want to see government reformed to provide more centralised power.

I think that's nonsense for three reasons.

Firstly, if the new Policy and Resources Committee does its job properly then the States will end up with a strategic master plan – approved by the whole House – which will impose a loose template on all departmental policies.

Secondly, having the odd public spat between two departments who genuinely disagree is healthy. So is a set-piece States debate to resolve that impasse. It is robust democracy in action.

Thirdly, it's quite possible to prevent the farce of the States agreeing to projects with no identified funding without changing our system of government. It only requires self-discipline or a simple rule change, or both.

There is nothing wrong with Green Paper discussions.

Indeed, it makes sense for departments to test the water with their fellow deputies before squandering expensive time and resources on detailed investigations. But such Green Papers should either give an outline of where any required funding is likely to come from or else refrain from committing the States to an expensive new service.

Any responsible government has to weigh up the benefits of a project on one side against the downsides of funding it. No sensible decision can be taken if they are only looking at one side of that picture.

So the process thus far has been deeply flawed. Does that mean that the States should side with T&R and reject pre-school education?

No, it doesn't. Instead it means they have to go back a step. Now at last they do have an outline from Education of where the required cash could come from.

Now they can look at both the benefits and the downsides of bringing in and paying for this new service. They have a far more complete picture and are in a position to make a more rational decision.

The options are to side with T&R and say we can't afford any new services given the state of the public finances, to support Education's proposals to fund pre-school education, or to support its introduction but propose an alternative way of paying for it.

No doubt deputies will be split. Personally, I desperately hope they do find an acceptable way to fund such a vital service.

Not because they've already approved it in principle. That was a nonsense. Rather, because the evidence is overwhelming that communities which neglect universal and structured early years learning are being penny wise and pound foolish.