Build it better

IT IS A little strange writing this on a Monday, when the report I am considering has not yet been published, but may have been by the time you read this on Thursday.

The report in question is the post-Covid-19 Recovery Plan being produced by Policy & Resources.

Trying to comment on the actual plan would be foolhardy and impossible; so instead I am going to consider factors which may influence it.

The first and probably most obvious observation is that the States is financially supporting individuals and businesses due to Covid-19.

Quite right too, but it is worth considering the justification for this support.

My logic is that the restrictions by Health and the Civil Contingencies Authority are for maintaining the health of all islanders – for us. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to provide support to offset the negative impact of those restrictions.

This support should not be so the owners can ‘get rich’, but so businesses are ready and able to re-employ people. Fundamentally, our economy is driven by the earning and spending of individuals, so that has to be where funding is targeted, albeit some will be via businesses.

Probably a more difficult moral decision is how long should this financial support continue?

On one level this might be quite straightforward. For instance, the 14-day quarantine rules, quite rightly imposed, are virtually killing the tourist industry, therefore it seems appropriate for some States support to continue for hotels while this restriction is in place.

We can take a similar view for restaurants. If their capacity is reduced due to the social distancing rules then there is logic for them to also be given a level of support. After all, the social distancing rules are there for our safety.

So far very simple. But what if a vaccine takes many months to develop and social distancing remains for a long time? What if the demand for eating out or holidays is lower than before due to the public’s perception of risk rather than the regulations?

I don’t want to sound pessimistic, but if we assume the capacity of restaurants has to remain reduced then increasing prices may be the only way for them to remain viable, but that will affect demand.

Perhaps we may see a return to the 1960s and 1970s when eating out was for holidays and celebrations rather than an every-week event?

We may never return to exactly how things were pre-Covid and the States cannot provide financial support forever; therefore, it is crucial for companies to also adapt their business models to the ‘new normal’ – whatever the ‘new normal’ will look like.

Without any data I cannot suggest solutions, but one thing is certain: we all need to support local businesses, and that means buying locally rather than defaulting to the internet.

One of the phrases being bandied around is ‘build it better’, so no doubt part of the plan will focus on that.

The huge amount of borrowing is not free money – it will need to be repaid out of existing tax revenue or future taxes. The government does not have its own money. It gets its money from us. That is why it is often called the public purse. Something I wish some deputies would remember.

These loans have to be spent wisely. Where possible, the spending should provide multiple benefits.

I am going to make some suggestions.

Recently a report criticised Guernsey’s tourist offering. And it was right to do so – you only have to compare what we offer to what Jersey offers to see just how poor our offering is. I accept there has been some recent private sector investment, which is great, but it is limited.

We are in a catch-22 situation where without visitor numbers new attractions are not viable, but we need more attractions to attract the extra visitors.

Focused States spending can help.

An area which has been a ‘Cinderella’ service has been the museum service.

At this point I should disclose that until recently I was a non-voting member of the Museum Management Board.

We have some great museums but some need refurbishment and upgrading. We also have the Roman wreck Asterix which needs a permanent home. There was also talk of a Victor Hugo centre.

Another project could be upgrading the pedestrian/cycle path between the Track and St Sampson’s High school into a proper pathway for students and the public. As a public cycleway it could be the last link creating a route across the north of the island which would involve only the 100 yards of main road; and by-passing the Halfway junction.

Investing in such projects would have multiple benefits: in the immediate term they would provide work for local contractors; while in the medium and long term they would protect our heritage, improve the tourist offering of the island, as well as ongoing social benefits, with minimum ongoing costs.

In making these suggestions I can be accused of doing exactly what I hope deputies don’t do: suggesting my pet projects.

My defence is that I have, hopefully, demonstrated that these offer multiple benefits – which has to be one of the key features of any recovery plan.

It is unreasonable to expect the plan to have all of the answers but it should be a step in the right direction.

But what is ‘the right direction’? Everybody will have a different view, but I hope deputies do not end up spending the £500m. on their pet projects.

Just because the money is available does not mean it has to be spent, nor that it is not to be very carefully spent.