Bob Murray: ‘States as we have known it can no longer deliver’

What I know to be true...

We regularly read opinions in this newspaper, either from a variety of pundits, some deputies, and indeed from the editor – regarding what is either wrong or needs to change in government.

There will always be a degree of factual accuracy within these but, as is the nature of opinions, there will also be a lot of assumptions too – and undoubtedly, whoever has crafted them is seeking to elaborate on a point of view, personal or on behalf of others.

Having lived, been educated and worked in this island since 1960, I am old enough to have seen a lot of change. Not all of it to my liking, which was why in 2020, I stood for election intending to try to influence the direction of travel away from what I certainly believed was not in our island’s best interests – and not economically sustainable either, given what it was possible to glean from States Accounts from the outside.

I subsequently spent two years as vice-president of Education, Sport & Culture, one of our principal committees, and a year on the Development & Planning Authority. Since 2022 however, I have been a member of Policy & Resources. So, I have experienced first-hand the delivery of frontline services, but while on P&R, I have seen the whole gamut of our financial challenges, policy development limitations, and of course, participated in our regular Assembly meetings of the States of Deliberation.

It is now my informed opinion that quite a lot has to change, because the States of Guernsey, as we have known it, is no longer able to deliver what a changing world is either imposing upon us, or cater for the expanding demands of islanders, although those expectations have become unrealistic for reasons I will endeavour to explain. Essentially however, we have two major issues that need to be put into context.

Firstly, the physical limitations on the size of our island, and the corresponding limits that imposes upon our population (within a density that remains acceptable), which means that we are essentially sub-scale for the cost-effective delivery of very many government (and a number of private) services – especially in comparison with larger jurisdictions.

I don’t think that is either fully understood or is being ignored by many in our community. Frankly, there is not much that can be done about that – but it does impact what government can be expected to deliver, particularly in relation to the demographic challenges and demands of an ageing population.

But the second issue is where change can and must occur within government, in order to minimise as far as possible the implications of being sub-scale.

This falls into two distinct areas – how government functions (structure) and how (and where) it spends taxpayers money, but equally importantly, how (and who) we elect to carry that responsibility.

It has certainly been my experience that the existing committee mandate system is no longer working satisfactorily. The degree of devolved responsibility simply dilutes any opportunity for government to function holistically at a strategic level and instead focuses political members’ attention – and in some cases understanding – into silos at the expense of the broader issues affecting government.

Frankly, this results in poorly informed decisions being taken when committees bring policy matters to the Assembly for debate – quite often being subject to ad hoc amendments on the day, frequently due to political or personal views, rarely supported by any empirical evidence – and sometimes, influenced by more vocal or active members of the community, who may themselves have a personal agenda.

What is very apparent, is that the much vaunted ‘consensus’ system of decision-making by 38 individual Guernsey deputies and two Alderney representatives certainly mitigates against making decisions at pace and falls victim to addressing policy-making very much in isolation – item by item. Furthermore, this established approach to government, is especially vulnerable to lack of experience (most acutely in the early part of the term) by new members, and an inability to think more broadly by some older members who have become entrenched in a way of doing things.

It will not have escaped islanders’ attention that the world around us has changed to such an extent – given Brexit, globalisation, regulatory compliance, Covid, a European war and energy challenges to name but some of the more significant – that we too must now embrace change in the way in which we prepare for an increasingly uncertain and challenging future.

Machinery of government

Any system of government will function at its best if it has a good calibre of participants. Prior to the introduction of the zero-10 tax system and the simultaneous global financial shock of 2007/8, our local economy was doing very well, with large surplus revenues every year. But those events did accelerate the burgeoning international regulatory requirements that have put considerable pressure on our finance industry, and very importantly, re-defined our taxation strategies to accommodate some £100m. of lost revenues.

The main consequence of all of this has been that the deputies we now elect to what I would contend is a government system which is now inadequate to meet the international and domestic environment of today have to be far better equipped to enable them to take increasingly serious policy decisions than ever before.

Most importantly, the States as a body must now function as a holistic, policy-making institution with a common purpose and agreed direction of travel. The current committee system tends to act against that by delegating decision-making down to individual mandates, which result in policy-making driven by committee responsibility rather than States-wide priority. Furthermore, it opens the opportunity for the results of (sometimes) many months of work to be effectively dismantled by members on the floor of the Assembly who have no overarching context with which to measure the value and suitability of any policy brought forward.

The revamp of the committee system in 2016 has had a nine-year pilot. I contend that it needs further refinement due to the mix of responsibilities across multiple committees that both complicates and frustrates efficient operation and governance. This however, is entirely the prerogative of the next Assembly.

We failed to find sufficient common ground to move forward on this issue. It most certainly is the case that government must now focus on only that which government can deliver, while commissioning out the rest.

30 deputies are enough

The Isle of Man functions with a government of only some 24 elected members for a population of circa 85,000 people. I see absolutely no practical reason why we need 38.

It is far more important that we have the best calibre of deputy than the number, but obviously, there is also a cost attached to however many we choose to be in government. I would far rather reduce the number of those elected, and release some funding to support an independent body to scrutinise the work of government, not tied to just the four-year term of any particular Assembly and its members.

I believe it is very important that islanders have trust in government and would be more inclined to do so if it were held to account independently, and not by marking its own homework – no matter how principled and thorough any scrutiny committee happens to be.

Island-wide voting is without a doubt an appropriate means of providing the opportunity to elect the very best candidates. But having seen it in action, there is scope for a loss of connection with the electorate who find themselves somewhat distanced from the familiar process of historic parish voting, which provided for a more intimate relationship with individual deputies. Consequently, I do feel there is opportunity for exploring a hybrid and within the suggested reduction to 30 deputies I would propose 10 of them could be elected from (and represent) the 10 parishes.

Financially, Guernsey is now at a point whereby it is obvious that it cannot afford the burden of cost which an ageing population is bringing and will continue to bring, with Health and Social Care having the greatest need to find finance for in order to service demand.

We are certainly not alone as a jurisdiction in having this problem, but since we cannot print money, we have to be able to find a model which will enable us to live within our means despite this known future demand.

But it also means reassessing what government does in relation to the revenues it takes in. This coming Assembly will be charged with undertaking a full review of all of the current services provided and focusing on just that which others cannot do, to try to contain costs.

That may well move the burden on to individuals instead.

That will be a considerable challenge for new deputies.

Consequently, I have put together a website to provide more information: vote4guernsey.gg.