Guernsey Press

What’s sauce for the goose...

OCCASIONALLY in the world of Guernsey politics there is a coincidence of reports which makes comparing the different political attitudes thought-provoking.

Published
(23360087)

The two reports I am thinking of are the HMIC one into Law Enforcement and the debate on the Annual Monitoring Report from the Development & Planning Authority.

I would not be surprised if you were wondering what on earth these two have in common. Well, it is not their subject matter, more the attitudes expressed by deputies which demonstrate how complex – or illogical – the political world can be.

Firstly, just to be 100% clear, I am not in any way advocating political involvement in day-to-day policing.

One of the criticisms facing Home was they tried to interfere with operational policing matters. And yet, while debating the planning report, many argued that deputies should be very closely involved in the operational issue of determining planning applications.

Can it be right that deputies must stay clear of one operational area, but can be heavily involved in another?

I’m pretty sure most people will agree with my gut feeling that these are two different situations; after all, policing is policing.

However, if we compare the two functions it becomes less clear cut as to whether that ‘gut feeling’ is appropriate; so it is worth considering the various factors.

Clearly the police deal with the application of laws and as such it would be inappropriate for politicians to be involved in anything but the strategic level. Planning also deals with the application of laws, so surely if we are being consistent then it follows that politicians on Planning should only be involved at strategic level?

Both do operate within a clearly defined legal framework.

Aha, you say – the police deal with laws which can result in loss of freedom for individuals. True, to a limited extent.

The police attend incidents and, if appropriate, make arrests, but it is the law officers who decide to prosecute, and the courts which decide on custodial sentences.

Yes, I know the police do hold those arrested in their cells pending investigation, so it is correct that their actions will impact on a person’s life, but that is for a comparatively limited time before the matter is handed to the court system.

Planning decisions will also have a direct impact on people’s lives, albeit in a different way. People’s personal freedom is not affected, but determining a planning application can have a significant effect on a person’s life, both from day-to-day living and financial perspectives.

One area where the two differ is that being arrested or even just interviewed can damage a person’s reputation. Clearly, it would be difficult to see how the determination of a planning application could do the same. But is that enough to justify our ‘gut feeling’?

I am not suggesting that deputies should be involved in operational policing, far from it. It is more a question of why then would it be justified for deputies to be involved in a policy-based planning system?

I suppose one of the biggest differences is that a planning decision may have an impact that will last for generations and affect many thousands of islanders – just think Admiral Park, Leale’s Yard etc. In which case, there must be a justification for deputies to be involved, after all, they are our elected representatives.

I want to be clear that these are general comments and not directed at any particular member of the Planning Authority, either past or present.

There is logic, but it is dependent upon them being ‘elected representatives’. Prior to island-wide voting, to be elected you have to be more popular on one day every four years than the six or seven other people in your district. How does that give the person the skills or ability to make a planning decision?

Also, how many of the deputies on planning authorities over the years have actually stood for election on a mandate of planning issues?

If we add to this the fact that the Planning Authority is not seen as being one of the ‘top’ committees – election of its members coming after that of the main committees – there is a danger that it does not attract the very best and most able deputies.

So, when it is said that our elected representatives should make planning decisions, that could be interpreted as being: deputies who expressed no preference to be on Planning during the general election, have no planning experience, and are available in part because they were not elected onto the main committees should be making planning decisions.

OK, that may be a bit harsh, but you get my drift – people tend not to stand for election on a platform of wanting to be on Planning, with their manifesto containing detailed, planning-related proposals. In which case, why does being an ‘elected representative’ justify an involvement in determining individual planning applications?

The reality is it will always be important for politicians to keep out of day-to-day policing, and there will always be a call for politicians to be involved in planning decisions, especially the very largest of applications. But the reason for the different attitudes, like most things in politics, is not as clear cut as we may at first think. And any system which involves politicians making such operational decisions needs to be carefully thought through.

Since this is my last column of 2018, I take the opportunity of wishing you a merry Christmas and a peaceful New Year.