Same old same old

THE first two States’ meetings of the year were dominated by one topic – tax.

After six days of debate, the Assembly resolved that we have a problem which requires a staged approach to address it, before rejecting Stage One but approving Stage Two. For those familiar with social media, this is the juncture at which you might see a ‘face plant’ emoji. For everyone else, there is nothing more that can be said.

The normal business of the States of Deliberation will now resume. Having said that, there is a backlog of business rolled over from previous months because of the all-consuming, oxygen-sapping nature of the Tax Review.

As ever, the meeting will start with six-monthly statements, this time from Policy & Resources and Economic Development. However, having last month lost GST as its flagship policy of the term, and only last week been subject to a public hearing in front of a Scrutiny panel, at which a lot of new information came out, it’s difficult to imagine what else P&R has got to tell us. Last week, we learned that the ship that Condor announced had been bought and renamed is not in fact a signed and sealed deal, not least because P&R has not yet approved the investment of £5m. into an as yet unformed infrastructure cell of the Guernsey Investment Fund. News that the anticipated costs of the capital programme have grown stratospherically was delivered with ennui and an extraordinary ‘c’est la vie’ shrug that the numbers ‘are what they are’. It felt as if either they’d given up, or did not recognise that it is their responsibility to maintain a firm grip on spending.

Inevitably, more than a hint came through in Scrutiny’s hearing that none of this would have been a problem if only the Assembly had approved plans for GST, perhaps not realising that many in the community will be even more grateful that P&R has not been handed that particular cookie jar, given its inability or disinterest in controlling spending.

Maybe Economic Development will have more to say about its four-to-one position not to extend Guernsey’s runway, albeit that the much-delayed policy letter will not now be debated until the other side of the summer. But that debate seems entirely redundant given that P&R has already said that the whole capital programme will be debated in July. If the runway isn’t in that programme, what will there be to debate? Hundreds of thousands of pounds and too much time has and is being spent on re-examining an issue that has been looked at several times, to finalise a policy letter that will recommend no change in policy. If that is the committee’s conclusion, wouldn’t it be a lot easier and more cost- and time-effective if the committee just used the Government Work Plan debate to rescind the resolutions driving the whole process?

Talking of re-debating issues, this week will see another glyphosate debate generated by a requete. Although the requete is opposed by all the relevant committees, that will not guarantee a short debate.

Another topic being revisited is how Guernsey Financial Services Commission fees are set. Back in the day, the GFSC had power to set these by regulation after consulting with P&R. This was reversed in 2014 in response to States’ and industry concerns after several years of inflation-busting fee increases, so the regulation-making power shifted to P&R after consultation with the GFSC. At the time, that change was fiercely resisted by the GFSC. A bit like the reversal at the beginning of this term of the States’ decision to the transfer of the probate function away from the Ecclesiastical Court, the GFSC has seized the opportunity to secure from P&R reversion to the previous position. And as with the probate reversal, it will be nodded through after little challenge by this States.

The States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee has a pretty uncontroversial but dry policy letter tinkering with a few of the States’ internal rules of procedure that will have no impact outside the States.

Environment & Infrastructure has an important policy letter to agree the States’ Strategic Housing Indicator which will inform the market, developers and planners on the nature and number of new housing units required to meet expected needs up to 2027. No amendments have been lodged to the propositions, but there is always the risk that it will meet opposition for no better reason than it’s been proposed by E&I, ergo for some, it must be flawed.

The Development & Planning Authority has two policy letters. One follows up a previous States’ decision to tweak the planning ordinance in relation to those developments that are exempt from the need for planning permission. All very pragmatic stuff to reduce red tape for those things which are becoming more normal, such as heat pumps and solar panels. There is also a practical request to allow the DPA to make future changes by regulation, rather than having to come back to the States each time, which should expedite future changes.

The DPA’s second policy letter will be rather more controversial, not least because one of the DPA’s vice-presidents (the real one, Deputy Taylor) opposes the policy letter. It seeks to give the States powers to order that in some circumstances landowners tidy up their properties. At first pass, this seems quite a reasonable and attractive idea, but many will object to government seeking to interfere in individual property rights. As ever, watch out for those members who promised you smaller government and championed the liberty of the individual, who go on, without irony, to support this measure. A little bit like Economic Development’s move against the sale of ‘hedge fish’, the whole topic can hardly be classified as a priority, but it’s nonetheless absorbed considerable time and resource this term – at a guess driven by one of the DPA’s members who has a bee in their bonnet about one or two eye-sore sites.

One of the amendments, if successful, would exclude domestic curtilage from this new power, which would substantially neuter the measure. The other would remove the exemption that is proposed for this measure for the States’ own properties. The logic that the law should treat the States in the same way as everyone else is quite hard to disagree with, but it would significantly alter the objectives of the policy letter – a clear example for those arguing the case in the policy letter of ‘be careful what you wish for’.

After two months of tax debate, as the Assembly devotes considerable time to the less consequential and revisiting a number of topics, the normal business of the States really is being resumed in more ways than one.