Deputies will have to keep eyes on the big picture

THIS States' move to widely reform the structure of government will have impacts well beyond the structural rejig of committees and cutting numbers.

It strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a deputy – and what it does not.

That in itself has an impact on the role of the public sector staff, of non-States members on boards, perhaps even of the douzaines and how they operate on the ground.

Fewer States members should mean more work for those who remain.

The age of the semi-professional, and in some cases fully professional, politician is here – it is no longer a nice add to a full-time job or an answer to staying active in a quiet retirement. Its pay reflects that.

With that the bar of expectation from the public is raised – the ability and skills of a deputy, and their time commitment, should be different to previously.

There is a clear tension that this new system, with a focus on being policy makers and not micro-level tinkerers, brings about – something that was recognised in the reform debate.

Where is the line between policy making and interfering in operational issues – and, indeed, does the public recognise it or even want one?

This new structure envisages States members as either policy makers or scrutineers, or both, but not involved in the day-to day ordering of paper clips or what colour to paint Frossard House.

Now that should and could work.

The political boards become focused on performance management, making sure the public sector is hitting goals and targets that the politicians have set – holding them to account for not doing that and being open and honest with the population about that too.

But some deputies simply do not like that distinction. They argue that the boundaries are there to be blurred and the voters expect it.

Anyone can call up their deputy to complain about public services. Some deputies like to take on those challenges on behalf of their electorate, some indeed have made a career out of it.

This is both the blessing and the curse of island nature, because really those calls should be dealt with elsewhere and the new breed of politician will need discipline to not get involved.

This tendency is short-termism. We need politicians engaged in the big picture challenges that the island faces, mapping out a secure future for the economy, ensuring we have the right type of health service to cope with an ageing demographic, or an education system that can cope with the changes coming in the next 20 years.

It is a vast challenge, which is why they should not be spending the majority of their time finding out why Mrs Le Page's water bill was so high.

The concerns expressed during the reform debate over how to populate the States Trading Board – which will oversee the operations of all States-owned utilities and businesses – betray this job description division.

Some tied themselves in knots about the split between political members and non-political members, seemingly oblivious of what the actual nature of that board will be. It needs all the industry expertise it can get. The policy making – the politician's role – will rest elsewhere in the new major committees.

You may hear the traditionalist shouting that to back off on delving into operational matters leaves it all in the hands of the civil service.

Well, it should be in their hands. Senior managers should be accountable for operational failings, not political boards as we have seen in the past – their heads should be on the block for policy failings.

The civil service should be given some space to operate in an efficient and effective manner, using the specific training and skills they have – a strong board can see where policy and operations are not delivering and can hold staff to account on behalf of the electorate.

That is the system that members have endorsed and they will do well to remember it.

Of course there is still that expectation from some of the public that their deputy should be involved in the nitty gritty on their behalf. That pressure is understandable.

It is only natural that sometimes the bigger picture is overridden by the very real issues of immediate, everyday problems. Could this shift in the political classes upwards into the world of strategy lead to an enhanced role for the parish douzaines?

This may be the opportunity for a rebirth of the parish system itself, or at least the reinvigoration.

Already the douzaines are involved in what might be termed the smaller, everyday issues over things like rubbish collections, but ones that have real impacts on everyday life.

Could they become even more of a torchbearer for those dissatisfied and inconvenienced individuals, picking up a layer of scrutiny and pressure that the new breed of States members has left behind.

Many nowadays do not connect with the douzaines in the way that they do with their deputies, probably because of the profile – but that can be easily solved and they are just as readily available at the end of the phone line.

Maybe they will not want this role, but it has long been clear that without a refresh, parish officials will slowly wither away as the role becomes less and less applicable to changing times and outlooks.

States members have no job description, they have no career or skills development plans – shortcomings that need to be overcome.

This new system will need very different skills to make it work than were seen in decades gone by. The world has changed and so has the role of a politician.