College principles

To start with something which does not happen very often, when it comes to the question of a separate sixth form centre with a separate College of Further Education versus a single tertiary college, I do agree with Deputy Peter Roffey – there is a lot of merit in the latter.

Although I always appreciated the management and financial benefits of a single college, I was not convinced because of the often repeated comment that their results are not as good as sixth form centres – an argument I see the committee is trotting out again.

What changed my mind was a long conversation with the then deputy Peter Sherbourne, a former head teacher who was, and presumably still is, an advocate of tertiary colleges. He pointed out that while the results averaged across all of them may not be as good, the results of the best colleges are very good indeed, and it is those we should be using as our operational model to emulate the best of what they offer, not looking to the ‘average’.

It is anomalous that the Education committee often says that our system should be comparable with the best in the world, not the average.

Yet here the comparison for the potential standards of a tertiary college is with the average in the UK – perhaps because that is the comparison which suits its argument.

As important as education is, the big news is the publication of the annual Budget, which sets out the government stall for the next year. Even here I cannot help but comment on Education, its overspend and the request for more money for next year.

To achieve savings, there must be both the opportunity and the willingness to achieve them. I am not privy to Education meetings, the advice they get from staff or the willingness of everybody there to make the tough decisions, and from an outsider position I have very mixed feelings about the committee’s position.

On the one hand, the committee of the 2008-2012 government was very slow regarding the FTP process and arguably showed a disregard for at least one related policy. Prior to this period, departments were pretty free to use any surplus monies as they wanted and could bring in new services if they had the spare funding. In essence, the FTP resulted in surplus monies being put into one pot and all departments having to make a case for funding to start a new service. This is what led to the rather unfortunate debate pitching bowel cancer screening directly against new storage for museum artefacts.

During this period, the then Education Department did identify some spare funding but rather than return it introduced the international baccalaureate. Ignoring the pros and cons of the IB, the States had a process to prioritise new services which Education ignored when it introduced the IB outside of the new service prioritisation process.

I know what you are thinking – that was years ago, what has that to do with the current situation? At least one deputy from that committee is currently on the Committee for Education, Sport & Culture: Deputy David de Lisle. Furthermore, some, if not a majority, of the current Education senior management were in post at that time. With this background it is not unfair to ask if there is a real determination to make savings.

I do actually have some sympathy with Education. If they really cannot make the savings, then requesting more money is the right thing to do. I recall one meeting where a then minister made comment about the problems the Budget was causing, only to be told by a member of the then T&R that if they felt that way, they should have placed an amendment to the Budget rather than just accepting it.

To a degree, Education is between a rock and a hard place: if it requests money it is seen as not trying hard enough. If it does not and then cannot achieve budget, it will be accused of a lack of financial control.

This is, of course, dependent upon just how realistic the estimated savings are. This question is why I welcome the recommendation to create a joint Education/P&R oversight body. Far from being akin to a school being put under ‘special measures’ it is, or it should be, an opportunity for P&R to ensure that all saving opportunities are fully considered, while at the same time affording Education the opportunity of ensuring P&R fully understands the pressures faced. We can only hope that everybody involved in that joint group leaves their ego at the door so the group can work together in a positive way rather than starting in very defensive positions.

As yet, the jury is out on that one. Only time will tell.

Away from Education, the Budget contains few surprises. Indirect taxes increase in accordance with non-fiscal policies to deter smoking and drinking. The confirmation that under independent taxation, any unused tax allowance will be transferable to a spouse is good news.

A lot has been made of ‘The Plan’ and in particular the 23 States priorities. I like the idea of prioritisation – the problem is that many deputies cannot do it. How many times have we heard deputies in the media or on BBC Guernsey’s phone-in agreeing with a member of the public that X is a priority, only to agree with the next caller that Y is a priority?

Agreeing the 23 is the easy part – we can all do that – but actually de-prioritising and not progressing what is not on the list, and saying no to the public, will be the real test.

The biggest surprise of the Budget has to be the Aurigny situation. Not the fact of the loss for this year, nor that the recommendations from the strategic review have not been implemented – the Aurigny board has to be given time to implement them. The surprise was the muted tones of what P&R were saying about Aurigny. Add to that the lack of positive comments from the Trading Board, which has shareholder oversight of Aurigny, and the signs are not conducive to confidence that a positive end is in sight. Again, time will tell.

On the whole this is very much a ‘year two’, steady-as-you-go Budget. What will be interesting is just how supportive each of the presidents are in their speeches and how many use those speeches to express caution about their particular committee’s ability to remain in-budget.

The most interesting non-Budget issue to come to light is the possible MSG relocation, or more precisely that such an event was not included in the recently negotiated contract. Depending upon which report you read, HSSC knew the lease was coming to an end but assumed it would be renewed, and nowhere during the negotiations was the possibility of the group relocating to the PEH mentioned. A significant omission by somebody.