'Future Guernsey' plan needs clear performance targets
RE: FUTURE GUERNSEY. Having written many business plans in the past I, with the benefit of hindsight, now accept that without clearly defined and achievable targets these plans aren't worth the paper they are written on. The plan presented by Gavin St Pier to the IoD last week failed in my opinion to identify any areas where the proposed Business Plan can be easily judged to have been a success or failure. Most if not all of the many critics of the States of Guernsey will no doubt view this initiative as the usual 'smoke and mirrors'.
I accept the argument outlined by Mr St Pier that our 'system' every four years produces a mixed bag of individuals that have to be moulded into a cohesive unit – which I believe takes approximately four years. Many of those elected will be making decisions while looking over their shoulders towards the next election – assuming that they have the appetite to seek a second term.
With a possible change re. the introduction of island-wide voting and with it another reduction in the size of the house, the survival factor will be even more relevant.
When the next general election takes place the voters will be allocating their votes to candidates that they believe have best represented their views and actually made a difference.
I believe that our present elected representatives should consider this situation when they come to vote through Future Guernsey. Please give the plan some targets that we, the people that voted you in, can gauge performance from. My fear is that it will go through on the nod and probably lie gathering dust somewhere. And, should its objectives be challenged three years down the road then Mr St Pier and his army of civil servants will be able to come up with a plausible answer that indicates progress is being made.
Amongst the objectives I note that we will continue to invest in 'Digital Business'. I have no problem with this but while watching breakfast TV recently I see that the city of Berlin has stated that it is working towards becoming the digital capital of Europe – surely a David and Goliath situation.
I find it difficult to understand why a special mention for tourism wasn't included in Future Guernsey – unless those responsible for drafting the document believe that there is no future for tourism in Guernsey.
Recently I enjoyed a holiday in Jersey and must applaud their government's investment in tourism.
Needless to say they have in the region of three times as many visitors as we do but it wasn't that long ago that their numbers were dropping at a faster rate than ours. Arrivals at Jersey Airport are up year on year by in excess of 5% while ours have dropped by a similar amount. I found that on an 'in general basis' their restaurants were better than ours – which wasn't the case several years ago.
Their tourist attractions have had significant investment and their beaches are much cleaner than ours and with better facilities.
Several years ago the States of Jersey invested £10m. in the infrastructure of their tourism industry.
It appears to me that that investment is repaying Jersey many times over. Jersey is only 25 miles away. Surely we should be questioning why they are succeeding while our industry is clearly failing, It's too easy to lay the blame on our runway length or the problems with our sea link – both of these factors are problems that can be overcome.
In my view tourism is the logical industry for us as an island to invest in. Most of the 'structure' of the industry exists – what the industry needs is commitment and a level of support from Government. If this was forthcoming then I believe that further investment from within the industry would happen. The industry needs service not lip-service.
In closing I would like to encourage the readers of the Guernsey Press to lobby their deputies not to just nod through this Business Plan – Guernsey is not a business and never should it be considered to be. It is a community. We the voters need to see provable progress and not be expected to swallow the 'Emperor's New Clothes' argument.
BRUCE WALLACE.
