When there is no right answer...
The successful handling of the Covid-19 crisis has led many to call for executive government in Guernsey, but the decision-making involved was far from the norm, says Peter Gillson
THIS week I am starting by doing something I have never done before: correcting the editor of this paper, in particular his opinion of Friday 3 July which was about the Deputy Victoria Oliver issue.
A quick recap: a member of the public posted a message on social media about a police raid at her home. In response Deputy Oliver posted a reply commenting on the police action, including noting ‘I am sorry for what you have been through’. The other members of the Home Committee thought this breached a protocol. This disagreement led to a report being submitted for States debate calling for Deputy Oliver to be removed from the committee.
Home subsequently placed an amendment to withdraw and not debate the report, which led to the editor’s column, which suggested that nothing had changed to justify the amendment.
In this suggestion, he was incorrect.
It seems that something had changed – agreement was reached between the members of the committee, resulting in Deputy Oliver posting a clarification: ‘Although I deleted my original post. On reflection, I should not have commented as it is an operational policing matter.’ That should have ended the matter, but the debate was held.
This raises the question: why did 17 members of the States, including three members of P&R, insist on the matter being debated? Don’t they have more important matters to debate than an internal conflict which had been settled?
Changing the subject.
One thing I think most people will agree on is how well the Civil Contingencies Authority and Health have managed the Covid-19 crisis. Clear and decisive action was taken in a manner which has put the islands in a far better position than many other jurisdictions.
By its nature, this was a smallish group of deputies and officers and therefore the closest we have seen to an executive form of government, which has led to a number of comments to the effect that this shows executive government can work in Guernsey and therefore the island would be better served by executive government than our current consensus government.
On the face of it, this view does seem to have some merit – it worked with the Covid crisis so why not in normal life? While the view does have merit, I think it is a little superficial and misses some key aspects of government.
The Covid crisis was uniquely different to normal government decisions. It was a single dimension issue and the objective was straightforward – to stop infections occurring and save lives.
I am not suggesting that taking the decision to remove our freedom was an easy decision – such a decision would never be easy – but getting to that conclusion would have been pragmatic: infections are through inter-person, therefore we need to limit inter-person contact, therefore we need to lock down.
The result of the decisions on the infection rates was very quickly established, which either showed it to be correct, justifying the decision, or enabled it to be modified.
It was easy for us, the public, to understand why the decision was made and see that it was beneficial. Also each decision had a finite life before having to be confirmed by the States.
The very pragmatic nature of the decisions, the availability of evidence and the short-term nature of the decisions make them very different from normal political decisions.
For the majority of decisions the States makes there is no absolutely correct way forward.
Take for example the annual increase in the state pension. There are some obviously wrong decisions – no increase would clearly be wrong – but should the increase be 1%, 2% or 5%? There is no ‘correct’ answer. It is a matter of political judgement.
In a way, the increase in pension is fairly straightforward – it is linked to the increase in RPI, so there is an agreed and measurable baseline to compare it to. For some decisions, no such comparison is possible.
Take for instance the choice between two or three schools. There is plenty of evidence supporting both options. Some may be very debatable: school X may be a great school and on the face of it supports one of the options, but is its success a result of its size or having an exceptional headteacher?
The schools decision is also a good example of how States decisions can be long-term decisions – in this case buildings with a 50-year life.
Sometimes there can be no way of measuring the value of the different options. It is pure judgement.
I recall a debate to allocate a sum of money to either bowel cancer screening or the purchase of storage for the museum service.
The same amount would be spent on either, so they had the same cost, but how do you measure their respective value to the island? Impossible to do so – there was no ‘correct’ answer, nothing faintly pragmatic about the decision. It was a decision of pure political judgement.
Many people will make a thought-provoking case for executive government, but the way decisions were made during the Covid crisis, and the effectiveness of those decisions, is not an appropriate example to support the introduction of executive government in Guernsey.
