Opinion: From the sensible to the superfluous

Both meetings will be preceded by a ‘States of Election’ – comprising the States of Deliberation, representatives from the douzaines and the 10 parish rectors – convened to fill a vacant seat on the jurats’ bench following a retirement.

First up are the now regular, scheduled statements from the presidents on the work of their committees. This time, we have the large and active States’ Trading Supervisory Board and then the somewhat lower profile Transport Licensing Authority. We were also due to receive a statement from Deputy Peter Ferbrache updating us on his committee’s work since his first statement on 4 November. My present understanding is the presiding officer – the role the Bailiff fulfils when he chairs the States of Deliberation – has not given his permission for such a statement. If that remains the case, I am not sure why that permission would have been denied, but the presiding officer’s discretion is broad and clear.

Whatever the reason, it is a great shame and a lost opportunity to scrutinise the Policy & Resources Committee on, it is increasingly clear, a hopelessly over-optimistic programme of actions to be completed ‘within two to three months’. Deputy Ferbrache would not be human if he was not regretting saying at that time, ‘We will get on with things and meet deadlines. We will suffer no procrastination’.

After some routine elections and appointments to the Planning Panel, Police Complaints Commission and the STSB, there is the usual raft of regulations – the majority this month relating to the Guernsey Registry – and some smaller pieces of legislation.

The main body of the meeting continues to be dominated by a workload begun in the last term and still trickling through the pipeline, which emphasises the ‘super tanker’ nature of government business. Whatever the rhetoric, whatever the ambition, whoever the cast of characters and however much the frustration, it just takes time to get things from the starting line in a committee to the finishing line in the Assembly, particularly if legislation is needed. This is why States-watchers have a wry smile when they hear the expectation mismanagement of the oft-repeated ‘action this day’ mantra, which has characterised the early days of this term.

One short policy letter deals sensibly and pragmatically with ‘succession planning’ in the STSB to ensure some continuity is maintained by the staggered appointment and retirement of non-States members on the board. Another from the Committee for Economic Development wisely proposes the introduction of limited liability companies legislation to Guernsey, giving the financial services industry another tool in the box as it competes with other jurisdictions for business familiar with the use of these structures.

There are then two joint policy letters from Policy & Resources which were started in the last term. One with the Committee for Employment & Social Security to introduce a new governance model for the various investment portfolios overseen by each committee. This is the one that I was asked – and pleased – to continue work on after the election. Broadly, it seeks to de-politicise and professionalise the oversight of those funds. Given there is around £3.5bn of investment assets in them, underpinning the States pension enjoyed by us all and the pension fund for public servants, it is a timely and appropriate improvement and upskilling in their governance.

The second is lodged with the Committee for Home Affairs and is another governance change, this time to the Seized Assets Fund – a statutory fund created a number of years ago to receive the proceeds of certain crimes, particularly economic crime. When it was set up, governance in essence rested with our attorney general, HM Procureur. As time has passed and given the sums retained in the fund – in excess of £10m. – that model has felt increasingly uncomfortable for both government and the law officers. The new arrangements will ensure appropriate political oversight, whilst retaining the largest part of the proceeds (80%) principally for use in the fight against crime, whilst 20% will be set aside for wider charitable and community benefit, through the Social Investment Fund, set up in the last term to channel such public funds for community use.

The final policy letter is another from the Committee for Economic Development seeking ‘control of the first sale and purchase of fish and shellfish landed in Guernsey’. Although this was started in the last term, it looks and feels like what Deputy Ferbrache would call a vanity or pet project of the committee’s president, Deputy Neil Inder.

Sale of catch from unlicensed vessels is already illegal but is, apparently, unenforceable. Rather than getting the evidence to prosecute the one or two boats engaged in this illegal fishing, the solution offered is to create another offence and make it illegal to purchase as well. Even though they are not, we are told, the target, it would criminalise every Guernsey man or woman buying from a mate who has a fishing rod on a boat and lands some spare catch. Enforcement of this too will be nigh on impossible, which is not great law making – unless we want to ‘right size’ the resources and employ more people to ensure enforcement.

The policy letter is particularly weak and its five pages are very thin on detail. We are told in relation to unlicensed vessels selling catch, ‘the scale of the problem has been brought into sharp focus over the last 12 months’. Although the ‘Committee has been aware of anecdotal evidence’ – never a good basis for decision making – and ‘has verified, that there are a number of unlicensed fishing vessels’, no evidence is presented and no estimates are even offered as to the scale of the problem.

Deputy Inder wrote on behalf of his committee to the Policy & Resources Committee asking that the matter be debated as ‘a matter of urgency’ without any evidence being offered up to support that assessment. The cynic would suggest that this was to get this policy in ahead of the Government Work Plan process which, if working effectively, would never regard this matter as a priority worthy of distracting resources and legislative drafting time.

If accepted, this will firmly give a lie to this administration’s purported commitment to de-regulation and smaller government. It is more regulation: firmly jumping on, not getting off, the back of the small guys.

Are you enjoying your new role?

EMPHATICALLY, yes!

Having held a senior political position for eight years and having stood in the election with the expressed wish to be re-elected the president of the Policy & Resources Committee, I will admit, becoming a ‘backbencher’ had not been part of my ‘plan B’.

However, I have surprised myself as to how quickly I made the transition from being at the heart of government and from being a key decision maker, with so much information and resource readily available, to being on the furthest possible fringe of our system of government without not being in it at all.

Although I’ve never felt I suffered stress, it can’t be avoided in senior roles and I certainly feel more relaxed; my GP will be pleased my blood pressure is down; I am fitter and for the first time in years outside family holidays, enjoying downtime with my family.

I don’t remotely miss hundreds of pages of briefing papers to read each week; and I certainly don’t miss the endless succession of meetings, big and small.

I have literally gained hundreds of hours to self-direct as I see fit. I welcome the chance to pick and choose the issues into which I wish (and now have the time) to delve more deeply. It’s liberating and truly a privilege and an honour to be only answerable and accountable to the electorate.

I don’t envy the decision makers. I’ve been in their shoes and know that none of the decisions they face, by definition, are easy – but that doesn’t mean I’ll go any easier on them as I scrutinise and hold them to account.