Barrage of proposed changes could over-complicate plan

READ between the lines – because it is often there, hidden away, that the meanings sit.

More often than not they will also be shrouded in verbose language to lull people into a false sense of security – or among a gluttony of words that dull your senses into submission.

And so it is with the barrage of amendments to the Policy & Resource Plan, a document that will guide everything this States does.

The plan is something of an everyman beast – at this stage you can interpret it to mean whatever you want it to, in the full knowledge that once passed it will set the direction in which the tinker-men and tinker-women of the States have got busy.

Some of them are the worst type of amendments, adding layer upon layer of complexity to a plan that has already failed to capture the public's imagination.

Previous attempts at forming this type of 'manifesto' for government have floundered because of exactly this, adding words so that something that was once one line of high-level strategy becomes an essay.

For all their good intentions, many deputies are not good writers of speeches – and why would they be, given the routes into politics? – so the finer craft of policy wording and the ability to edit is a mystery to them.

One of the largest volleys of amendments has come from the heads of Environment & Infrastructure – and normally the States backs the odd environmental commitment here and there to give the impression that it really, truly does care.

Deputies Barry Brehaut and Mark Dorey seemingly want to liberally litter the P&R Plan with the words 'environmental' and 'natural'.

Indeed, at one point they also want Guernsey to prevent climate change, which is quite bold.

Of course Guernsey should protect its environment – after all, destroy that and everything collapses.

But it is lines like 'prioritise, resource and implement extant environmental strategies and policies' in one of the amendments which make alarm bells start ringing.

What are these existing strategies and how much are they going to cost? Indeed, if they haven't been implemented yet, are they still relevant? And if they are, why has the committee not cut from elsewhere to get them off the ground? Ultimately, how is this high-level policy setting for the long term? It is already in the gift of the committee to get these going.

There's another amendment that has pound signs flashing all over it – introducing a line to 'develop policies which promote wise use of natural resources through fiscally neutral or positive taxes and incentives.'

Aside from the question of who the arbiter of what a 'wise use' of a natural resource is, what is a 'positive tax'?

It's probably not positive for the person paying it, but maybe it is for whoever gets to use the money it generates.

There is a move which under one reading would loosen the purse strings in the States, although that is not what the proposers intend.

Deputies Emilie Yerby and Shane Langlois' amendment on spending limits during a deficit falls head first into the trap of adding words until something can be interpreted in different ways.

Under the new fiscal plan, the rules would state there can be no real-term growth in spending while there is a deficit – easy.

Their amendment would keep this in place but adds a line 'until an appropriate combination of measures to remedy the deficit has been agreed'.

Now, a spend-happy deputy can read that to mean that once you have a plan in place to address the deficit, you can increase spending above inflation.

Cast your mind back to zero-10 – there was an agreed plan in place in 2008 to tackle the Black Hole, and here we are and the deficit remains.

So under this scenario, instead of spending restraint the States could have gone on splashing increasing amounts of taxpayers' cash on new services for the last eight years – a complete shift in mindset and emphasis.

Deputy Yerby says this is not what the amendment is trying to achieve, but it does.

Some amendments are those of good intentions, but stand as an exercise in being superfluous.

So to a statement about maximising States assets, deputies Dorey and Matt Fallaize want to add 'but without placing a disproportionate burden on customers, many of whom are inevitably on low incomes'.

Imagine the conversation at Guernsey Electricity, Aurigny and Guernsey Water now – 'well, we were going to quadruple all our prices, but not now, not now we have THAT amendment'.

Because while the States and its entities do need a much clearer idea of the total impact of all their policies – not just snapshots of a tax rise here, an increased charge there – adding these words does nothing but create the illusion of control.

Then we have the amendment from deputies Andrea Dudley-Owen and Laurie Queripel that aims to ensure that the States 'maintains high standards of recruitment and performance of staff within the civil service, which are balanced with sufficient oversight and affordability of terms and conditions, ensuring that senior pay is proportionate and justifiable'.

Can someone, somewhere, please say why this kind of statement needs to be in the P&R Plan?

It could kindly be called a statement of the obvious, but it is not high-level policy thinking.

You just might as well add a line or two about making sure the mugs are washed up at the end of each day in Frossard House.

The 20 amendments to the Policy & Resource Plan will ensure a level of scrutiny being applied to what is on the table, which is a positive – especially a move on ensuring the levels of capital spending are maintained each term or how we guide health and wellbeing.

But the real danger is that even well-meaning intentions end up making the plan unruly and flabby.