When 88 businesses speak with one voice the States needs to listen

And with that, all the promises of joined-up government fell apart publicly.

This statement is contained in Economic Development’s States report, published last week, proposing urgent changes to the population management regime to help a hospitality sector struggling with recruitment.

Perhaps stung by criticism that so far this term it has so far done precious little to develop the economy, the committee has decided to act in a manner that tramples all over the toes of the committee actually responsible for the law.

Home Affairs yesterday released its report, for debate next month too.

This could get lively.

Economic Development rightly believes in a need to act now so that the sector can prepare for the next season.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed, and we have polarising political stances to that – one is bold, but rash, one is meek.

When 88 businesses – pubs, cafes, restaurants and hotels – all speak with one voice, the States needs to listen, and in this case act quickly.

Quick, joined-up action was, of course, what we were promised under this new system of government.

Read back on the Billets that led to the latest incarnation of committee working and we were promised the reforms ‘should provide conditions more conducive to effective leadership and the sound co-ordination of policies and resources; proportionate checks and balances; and sufficient flexibility to adapt if and when circumstances change’.

I can’t find a bit where it says get together in the same room for a chat when needed, but I think we can all agree it’s implied.

You wonder, too, where Policy & Resources is in all this.

Last term this is the kind of thing that would have found itself being thrashed out across the Policy Council table where all the heads of every department would gather.

P&R’s mandate includes cross-committee policy development – this feels a lot like cross-committee work that needs to be co-ordinated – one committee with the mandate for employment opportunities and developing business; one for administering the employment restrictions and the policy that governs them.

Of course, what Economic Development has identified, thanks in part to a letter that Home Affairs has also been sent at the same time, is a recruitment issue with nearly three-quarters of businesses operating under capacity due to staffing shortages.

But it has not necessarily come up with the overriding drivers and solutions to that.

It is not just the time-limited, one year rolling short-term licence regime that is making Guernsey unattractive for workers.

The exchange rate, caused by market uncertainty as a result of Brexit, and what will happen as a result of Brexit itself, may also be major factors.

Perhaps it simply isn’t very attractive to come and work in a sector that struggles for investment anyway – and there is nothing yet forthcoming from Economic Development to address that very fundamental issue.

Its proposal to allow a one-year licence to be issued in perpetuity to someone is akin to an open-doors policy.

If accepted, it is hard to see what the point of the population management regime is at all.

Many, many years were dedicated to constructing apparatus that would allow the States to turn the tap on and off for different sectors as and when it is needed.

Whisper it, but in today’s climate, it is hard to see hordes of people knocking on the door to come and live here, or being able to afford to.

Still, the regime gives people comfort, and some bureaucracy to play with.

So the solution needs to be much cuter than the greatest minds at Economic Development have come up with unless, of course, members want to abolish the regime entirely.

There may be some truth to the committee’s argument that no one being employed in lower-skilled jobs would want to stay long enough to gain residency rights, but that is a massive shift in thinking for the island as a whole to swallow.

In the wake of Economic Development’s proposal last week, Home Affairs said that it is going to propose ‘appropriate interim measures’ in its November policy letter.

While Economic Development has too much of the Tasmanian devil in its approach, Home Affairs feels a bit like Eeyore.

Its president has laboured on process, evidence gathering, that under the new regime businesses should engage with the population employment advisory panel, who would then make recommendations to the committee, who would then bring proposals for change to the States.

Next it will be saying that form 2a needs to be filled in triplicate and sealed with wax before anyone can put out a fire.

Still, here we are, and yesterday it proposed something of a tooth pick to crack a nut.

It wants to allow those currently on the nine months on, three months off regime to be allowed to continue – but that option would not be available to new recruits.

It says it is ‘sympathetic’ to business needs, but considers that it would ‘not be desirable at this stage to reinstate the old system, particularly as the new law is still in its infancy’.

Both committees also want to address recruitment difficulties open market restrictions are also creating for – again they do not agree on how.

The sight of two committees that should be working together not even being able to talk is the States at its worst, proof that the new system of government remains flawed.