La Mare swing gives new meaning to 'consistency'

It reported to the Assembly with an update on all 19 projects the States wanted to go ahead with, including La Mare, and said this: 'Based on the assurance reviews, the Treasury and Resources Department considers that all pipeline projects represent robust strategic options, have identified benefits, have reasonable cost estimates and should progress to the next stage of project and business case development.'

So how does this square with the Treasury minister's stance last week when asked why it has taken until now, having been involved since the start of the term, to favour a review of secondary education before pressing on with La Mare?

'We have been consistent on that, as you well know,' he said.

Well, let's examine this 'consistency', when it began and the legacy – because it is revisionism like this that makes the public lose faith in politics.

If the June 2014 report was not the time to make everyone aware of its concerns that Education was putting the cart before the horse, then when was?

Perhaps during work and debate on Education's Vision document? Voted through by the States, this included reference to the secondary education review and La Mare rebuild.

Today's Learners, Tomorrow's World was released on 21 March 2013.

It has received 70 written responses, none from Treasury.

The department's comment on the States report itself stated: 'In accordance with its mandate, the Treasury and Resources Department is commenting on the resource implications of this States report. The department notes that the Education Department is seeking States approval of the strategic direction for the education system and that existing resources will be used to progress its implementation. If the implementation of any recommendations will require additional revenue budget, this will be detailed in future States reports and be subject to consideration as part of the States Strategic Plan process, or whichever process for the reprioritisation of funding is in place at that time.'

So how consistent was Treasury being?

In his speech during the debate itself, the first comment the minister made was about the need to turn the lights off in the chamber. He then wholly endorses the vision, talks about pre-school education and the FTP. That's it.

If ever there was an opportunity to reshape the debate on La Mare early on, this was it.

How about the deputy minister? Nope – he wanted to know about the roles of the colleges.

The other three board members? Deputy Perrot spoke about the colleges, Deputy Adam was mute – only Deputy Tony Spruce raised a concern about committing to La Mare before the outcome of the secondary review.

But there were no amendments to make this happen and certainly no united message from the department.

Deputy Mark Dorey, a signatory to this week's amendment that calls for the review before the rebuild, raised his point during the vision debate.

There was another chance to make the public know that Education was getting it wrong – the month before the capital debate, June 2014, the Education minister made a statement on its vision which updated progress on La Mare and the fact the secondary review would not happen in 2014.

Treasury again did not go public.

It may point to comments by Deputy Adam during the capital debate where he questions the order of the review and the rebuild.

But that point of view seems to have come very much out of the blue to Education.

'I trust this is not a T&R position as we are working very closely together with T&R,' the Education minister said later in the debate.

Presumably, it was not a department position, otherwise it would have been in its report, or in the minister's opening and closing remarks.

Now Treasury may have been furiously lobbying in the background and we all missed it, although the public indications are it was not, but it has had every opportunity to change the course of this debate since 2012 – two capital reports, ministerial statements and Education's vision document – and never taken the chance until now.

That is irresponsible because the upshot has been sudden confusion, disruption and fear for children, for teachers, for parents – not just those associated with La Mare but with all the secondary schools.

Remember, too, that T&R's arguments against the £60m. La Mare project when they were finally made public earlier this year were all about the spec of the building itself – it envisaged millions in savings by making corridors and classrooms smaller and scaling back the sports hall.

No mention again of the need for the 11-plus debate to come first, for another school to close or for a 900-plus capacity school.

This is not to say that T&R should take all the blame for the mess the States now finds itself in. There are scrutiny committees, individual deputies – all have the power to change the agenda should it be necessary.

Education and the previous States got it wrong with Les Beaucamps and left their successors backed into a corner with a commitment to La Mare which is decaying as time ticks on.

The spare capacity at the Grammar should have been addressed.

Education should have delivered its report on a new structure for secondary education in 2014, as it promised in its vision.

It is right to take a fresh look at secondary education policy and the future of the 11-plus, and ideally that vision would all be in place before any new school is built, but this is not an ideal world.

Even under Education's vision, the La Mare proposals were always being drawn up in tandem – it has been consistent with what it wants to do.

Children's education needs to continue while policy is worked on and they all need to be given equal opportunities to succeed – those at La Mare are not.

There are any number of ways you could reconfigure the schools – one or two super-comprehensives, a post-16 college on one site, or a campus approach, two Grammar schools instead of one, selection at different ages, or not at all.

It is easy to see members being tied up in knots, paralysed from making a decision because of the consequential impacts.

The easy option is always to wait for something else to come first.

But this is not a debate that should be being had coming towards the end of a political term.

We are now less than a year away from the general election. Should either of the La Mare amendments succeed, it could mean the States in March debating the future of the 11-plus, rearranging and closing schools and the rebuilding of La Mare. It would be a vote made with one half of the States having an eye towards electioneering, the other just wanting to retire – perhaps going all gung-ho or demob happy because they won't face the consequences.

That is not the environment for good decision-making.

Remember, too, that around this time this States will be faced with people reviewing its legacy and at the moment there is precious little positive to find.

Even if the members can coalesce around a decision, there will be no certainty.

A new States comes in a couple of months later and straight on the agenda will be selection and the rebuild – it is practically unavoidable, because of the timing, promoting it as a key election issue that will be at the forefront of the public conscience.

This is what prevarication and a lack of conviction leads to.