Guernsey Press

Logic or evidence?

FIRSTLY, congratulations to P&R for not granting £300k for evaluating two quarries which are obviously unsuitable for dumping inert waste.

Published
(Picture by Shutterstock)

Common sense prevails.

I also applaud their acceptance that there is a democratic issue to be resolved: the original decision by the States, albeit by a small majority (21 to 17), with deputies knowing at the time they voted that the cost would be in the region of £300,000. P&R acknowledges the matter needs to return to the States otherwise the five members of P&R, who all voted against the amendment, could be accused of frustrating the will of the Assembly.

I had intended to focus on something other than transport, but had to return due to the differing messages from deputies on the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure.

In a radio interview Deputy Brehaut noted that it: ‘… has been quite a colossal piece of work to go over every road … each road proposed, the staff have spent time there measuring speeds to give us the average speed, the speed of the average driver and the top-end speeds … that is in the documentation which was presented to us at a political level …’.

The obvious interpretation of this is that the committee used this information to inform their considerations, otherwise why expend staff resources, and therefore taxpayers’ money, on gathering the information?

However, in a subsequent radio interview another member of the committee, Deputy Dorey, dismissed the need for road-specific information, explaining: ‘… I think it is accepted that there is a massive amount of evidence to show that where you have a lower speed limit, and a car is travelling at a lower speed, it stops quicker …’.

This statement suggested that there was no need for road-specific information because that general view is evidence enough to justify the speed limit reductions.

This raises an obvious question: why did the committee spend significant money allowing staff to undertake a ‘colossal piece of work’ if they did not need the information?

I accept it does seem logical that a car travelling at a slower speed will cause less damage that a car travelling at a faster speed. But if that logic was the driving force (no pun intended) behind the changes then the logic is equally applicable to all roads on the island. Reduce all speed limits and all roads would become safer.

What is interesting is what Deputy Dorey didn’t say. The debate is about reducing speed limits from 35mph to 25mph and I suspect most people will interpret his statement as suggesting evidence exists that a 35mph to 25mph speed limit reduction will be safer; but that is not what he said. Deputy Dorey made no mention of what speed limit reduction his evidence relates to. I agree it is blindingly obvious that a reduction from, say, 70mph to 25mph will be safer and there may be evidence to support that. There may be evidence to support a reduction from 50mph to 35mph, but is there any to support the proposed 35mph to 25mph?

Deputy Dorey was not specific, so we do not know.

Was this just a ‘loose’ off-the-cuff reply, or were they very carefully chosen words?

Being a bit silly and taking it to the extreme, an island-wide speed limit of 10mph would be very safe, but very impractical. And this is what makes this whole issue complex – there has to be a balance between a slow, safe speed limit and one which allows the effective movement of traffic.

Which is why some road-specific evidence is needed and why Deputy Dorey’s comment may have seemed logical, but was in fact a pretty weak justification.

On their own, the messages from the two deputies each sound logical and plausible.

However, when you put them together they may not be contradictory, but the two interviews are hardly supportive of each other.

It seems that when trying to justify their proposals, the message was we can take comfort that the committee had lots of evidence presented to it that supports the proposals.

However, when trying to justify not making the evidence public the message was that evidence is not needed.

Is this what is meant by openness and transparency?

In an attempt to create some clarity, I have taken the unusual step of making a formal request under the Code of Practice for Access to Public Information for details of the evidence they had.

Finally, there is a suggestion that the matter should be taken to the States to decide. I totally disagree with this view. We have a committee-based structure of government by which matters are delegated to committees to determine. Speed limits is a matter which is within the mandate of the committee, so it is for them to make the decision. There is a very good political reason for the committee taking this matter to the States – it would effectively give them a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If approved by the States the committee could abdicate responsibility, after all it would have been the States, not the committee, which made the decision. If the States reject the proposals, the committee has an excuse for the lack of progress on the transport strategy – the States would have blocked their proposals. This is an example of where good politics is in conflict with good government. I hope good government wins and the committee make the decision – whatever it is.