Guernsey Press

The potential to get quite tetchy

Deputy Gavin St Pier explains what’s on the agenda at this week’s States meeting.

Published
P&R have nominated Deputy Bob Murray to replace Deputy Heidi Soulsby on the committee. (31493037)

IT’S going to be a busy three days in the States. It also has all the potential to get quite tetchy, with a number of flash points.

As ever, the meeting will kick off with statements. This time, from Health & Social Care and the Overseas Aid & Development Committee, following which either president can be asked any question that touches their committee’s mandate. While formal questions may have been lodged in advance for any of the other committees, they cannot be asked of the two making statements. Given the permanent existence of pressing issues for HSC – from staffing shortages to waiting lists – this may give Deputy Al Brouard some respite.

At some point, we may get a personal statement from Deputy Andy Taylor following his shock resignation from the Development & Planning Authority half an hour before it was due to consider the Leale’s Yard redevelopment last Wednesday. The presiding officer can permit and slot in personal statements as they see fit, but it is just that – a statement – so no questions are permitted after it. That is a great shame, as Deputy Taylor’s media release begs a number, having cited conflicts of interest within the DPA and ‘pre-determination’ by unnamed colleagues. He’s also made clear that he’s not giving any other media comment but, interestingly, with the protection of parliamentary privilege, he will of course be at liberty to say much more in a statement.

Next up will be the election of a member of the Policy & Resources Committee following Deputy Heidi Soulsby’s resignation. P&R have nominated Deputy Bob Murray, while I’ve been nominated by Deputies Yvonne Burford and Marc Leadbeater. Each proposer gets five minutes and each candidate 10 minutes to set out their stall. Unlike committee presidential elections, there is no opportunity for members to cross-examine the candidates, so it’s straight into a secret ballot after the nomination speeches. It will be particularly interesting for me to see whether the States wants me in the fold or would prefer me to carry on doing what I’ve been doing for the last two years.

Then we have a raft of deferred items from previous meetings: secondary pensions, environmental pollution law and the review of the Children’s Law. The introduction of secondary pensions was laughably deferred by the majority earlier in the year in light of economic uncertainty with the invasion of Ukraine and the pending tax review. Since then, economic conditions have deteriorated further and the tax review remains, well, pending. And yet, everyone who supported a deferral now seems to want to crack on with implementation. Absolutely nothing has been achieved by or changed as a result of the delay.

On the other hand, the Children’s Law review will probably be much less controversial than it should be. Having introduced an innovative, progressive and bespoke regime in 2008, which has largely been successful in delivering better outcomes for child welfare, while trying to keep children and families out of the court system, the review seems to want to graft on bits of law more familiar to the English system. The review process has been long-winded – as such processes often are – but somehow managed to miss meaningful consultation with some key groups, including those children and families who have actually experienced the system, and Professor Kathleen Marshall, who was commissioned in 2015 by the Scrutiny Committee to take a look at the system then. Professor Marshall pretty much concluded that the law was excellent, but the system needed the resources, leadership and governance to properly embed it. Tinkering with the law to push more children back through the court system isn’t going to change those existing systemic challenges. The problem is, this is a highly complex policy and legal area and very few in the Assembly have any real grasp or understanding of the implications of these changes, especially with no impact analysis set out in the policy letter. Despite the very real consequences for a largely hidden group of children, the whole topic is much more difficult and less interesting for some than, say, tinkering with the Fishing Ordinance – also on the agenda – to finally address the major social and economic problem none of us knew existed, namely by banning the sale of ‘hedge fish’.

If we get to it, the joint policy letter from the States’ Trading Supervisory Board and the majority of P&R (with Deputies Soulsby and Le Tocq dissenting) to rehabilitate, extend and widen the Alderney runway, as well as building a new airport terminal, is sure to break previous voting loyalties. The States of Alderney is saying Guernsey needs to invest in this infrastructure to help Alderney grow and pay its way in the fiscal union that was created between the two islands in 1948. Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t form any part of and is not evidenced in the policy letter, whose cases rests solely on it being the best long-term value. It is the thinnest policy letter I’ve seen on which the States is being asked to commit £24m. Well, actually, we don’t know it’s £24m., because in another unusual departure, we are being asked to green light an estimate that is based on a ‘rough order of magnitude’ of £24m. Does that make you nervous?

The case is also predicated on Aurigny’s own analysis, suggesting the scheme ‘would deliver a financial benefit of around £800,000 per annum’. That’s it. One line. Nothing else to support a key estimate that underpins the whole case. The situation highlights that much has changed since the 1948 agreement, put in place as a temporary arrangement to help Alderney recover after the Occupation. After 75 years, the composition of Alderney’s population and economy and public service needs and standards have changed substantially. Guernsey’s obligation to provide an ‘airfield’ in 1948 means something quite different in 2022. Further, the policy letter notes Alderney’s offer to help fund some of the additional costs of the recommended proposal but doesn’t note that one potential source of that, the Alderney gambling surpluses, fall within the common revenues of the fiscal union under the 1948 agreement. These are difficult conversations to have between the islands but they are conversations which must be had.

In weeks such as this, everyone needs to keep in mind that differences of opinion on policy aren’t – or shouldn’t become – personal. A drink together at the end of the day has in the past often proved a good icebreaker after a frosty day in the Chamber, but this States has been less willing to come together to do that than previous Assemblies.

Maybe this week will be different.