OPINION: Sometimes, we do need adults in charge

THANKS to a 115-page report that is completely anonymous and has been prepared by civil servants, marking their own homework after setting the questions to be asked, we now know that we had a bloody good pandemic. Faultless. It really could not have been handled any better.

So much so that one of my favourite findings from the awesomely probing Covid-19 Review is this:

‘Whilst these reviews are confidential and internal to the organisation, it demonstrates that, despite the pace at which these schemes were required to be developed as part of the emergency response, the States of Guernsey is ensuring due diligence.’

What? Secret reviews show how thorough we are? In reality, that quote actually means although the States used millions of pounds of your money through the payroll co-funding and the business support grant schemes, you’ll never know how effectively it was spent, whether any was wasted, or how well (or badly) it succeeded in achieving its aims.

Similarly, we’re told that by regularly reviewing the restrictions it imposed, the States sought to ensure that the benefits of the curbs in controlling transmission of the virus ‘outweighed and justified the significant damage the restrictions were inevitably inflicting’ – but without subjecting that absolutely critical test of proportionality to any objective scrutiny as to whether the pain inflicted was warranted.

But then, that’s the whole point of this pointless report. It merely pays lip service to reviewing how well government handled the pandemic that led to what the previous chairman of the Civil Contingency Authority Gavin St Pier described as ‘the most far-reaching deprivation of personal liberties since the Second World War’. Which, incidentally, he imposed through the lockdown.

As a result, when current chair Peter Ferbrache says the review is rigorous and comprehensive, you know he’s having a laugh. By definition, it cannot be either. An internal assessment with the key participants asking themselves how well they did is only ever going to have one outcome. To that extent, it doesn’t disappoint.

Its one discordant note – over rugby coach Warren Gatland’s clumsily-handled visit – was swiftly dismissed by Deputy Ferbrache because, as the report amply demonstrates, the CCA could do no wrong.

That’s reinforced by its findings. Remember, this was the worst deprivation of your personal freedoms since the island was last turned into a moated fortress back in 1940, yet warrants no more insightful recommendation than ‘continuing to monitor economic, health and social impacts of the pandemic on the community and respond accordingly’.

To be clear, my criticism is aimed at the process of producing a fig-leaf report, not how the island responded to the pandemic itself. Having a wash-up of what was done and concluding that the emergency powers which legitimised that response may not be fit for purpose is actually quite useful.

But please don’t try to fool us that what’s been done is either rigorous or challenging.

My view is that the States of Guernsey handled the pandemic well. It showed the public sector at its best, demonstrated its organisational flexibility when centrally controlled and directed, and did a good job in keeping the community safe in the face of an unknown and rapidly changing pandemic.

Hindsight – and we’ve had the benefit of that twice now with the Occupation – shows there’s a balance to be struck between government by command in the name of community good and what happens at all other times.

As the Billet d’Etat that led to the Civil Contingencies Law which underpinned the Covid response said: ‘Emergency regulations will only be used when quick action is necessary and decisive intervention is required in order to control the effects of an emergency and reduce them to the point that they can be managed by the normal mechanisms of government.’

What the Covid Review does establish is those ‘normal mechanisms’ were able to function despite the extreme circumstances, so there was parliamentary scrutiny of the CCA and what it was up to. Whether it was effective or sufficient is subjective and the review is silent on that. Nevertheless, it existed and the Royal Court was also able on two occasions to hear challenges to aspects of the emergency restrictions. Both cases failed but, again, checks and balances operated despite the emergency conditions.

Why does this matter? Because fundamentally we want two things from government – that it acts quickly and decisively when it matters, yet operates within the law and we have proof that it has done so.

You can see where I’m going with this. Since the States of Deliberation emerged some time in the 15th Century it has been subject to change and reform to make its operation better, more democratic and more representative, which is why deputies weren’t invented (or elected) until 1900.

One of the more useful recommendations from the Covid Review is looking to see whether there are legal mechanisms outside of the Civil Contingencies Law that might be better for managing protracted emergency responses. Glance at the command structure adopted by the CCA to deal with the pandemic and you see it could be adopted fairly easily to manage what you might call peace-time government.

So while looking at any modifications needed for the emergency law, we should also be looking at how to take the good bits (the quick and decisive) out of the pandemic and incorporate that within the existing States structure.

For the suspicious, this might sound a bit like back-door executive government. Yet when the chips are down we recognise that’s exactly what we need. Equally, how often is government dealing with plain vanilla Norman Normal without a whiff of crisis?

Since the pace and complexity of government is expanding exponentially, how about a system that can deal with a bit of an emergency? Not buying a boat but, say, resolving the accommodation crisis? Or getting on top of infrastructure investment? Reforming the public sector pension scheme? Balancing public finances. In other words, big ticket stuff that needs a joined-up approach.

So not executive government, but recognising there are defined circumstances when consensus works too slowly and imprecisely, and there are times when swift and decisive steps need to be taken to resolve a pressing community issue by empowering and demanding cross-departmental cooperation. Just as we did during Covid.

What the review does show is that Deputy Ferbrache lived up to his ‘action this day’ pledge during the worst crisis of a lifetime, acted within the law, and remained subject to scrutiny by the States and the courts.

That sounds pretty positive to me. So if there is to be one benefit from Covid, let it be Guernsey learning from the experience that there is a better way of managing our affairs and times when having adults in charge really does help.

After all we’ve been through, is that really too much to ask?