Check facts before publicising myths

The effects which have resulted in myths having become the ‘truth’.

In August, the States decided not to debate P&R’s amendment on the Seafront Enhancement Area. The reports on why the majority of the current States members voted in support of this motion have insinuated that we lacked foresight and rejected action.

I wish to correct this error and debunk the myth, not least because I proposed the motion.

I was not surprised by the reproach of our chief minister for not debating his amendment but I was shocked when the IoD chair slighted the Assembly for this decision at the IoD breakfast the other week, accusing us of inaction.

To make things worse, this was repeated by the invigilator and members of a panel at this morning’s IoD Midterm event (16 September). This lack of appreciation of what exactly we voted for is disappointing as it perpetuates a myth and misleads the public over what the States actually achieved.

Resolution 2, supported by the majority of the States, directs the new 'Seafront Enhancement Committee to bring a Policy Letter setting out the long-term development strategy of the east coast, as set out in Section 4 of the Seafront Enhancement Area Programme Update Policy Letter, for the consideration of the States of Deliberation by December 2021’.

Section 4.7.6 of the Policy Letter states: ‘The long-term development strategy will also be shaped by a public consultation as part of the options analysis phase. This will take place during the second half of 2020. In addition, the strategy will also set out clearly the type of body or agency that will be required to deliver the long-term strategy that the States of Deliberation and the community agrees.

‘This body or agency will be needed because projects of this type will be delivered over a number of years, and multiple terms of the States, and continuity will be needed in order to provide assurance to the community groups and investors who will collaborate with the States on this work. The States will be given the opportunity to agree the governance and terms of reference of the proposed body or agency.’

In comparison, P&R’s amendment, while also asking the States to agree, in principle, the formation of the Guernsey Development and Regeneration Corporation to drive the operational delivery of the SEA programme long-term development strategy, this was subject to P&R being the ones bringing the further detail on the mandate, membership, accountability, funding and involvement in that strategy back to the States.

The timeline for returning with that proposal was no later than March 2021 yet they too set the timeline for the development strategy to be considered by December 2021.

I found the idea of setting a terms of reference for a quango before it knows its objective putting the cart before the horse. Together with the track record of P&R in four years of running the Seafront Enhancement Area project, it seems pie in the sky to expect an Assembly to keep the decision-making with P&R – but that is what their amendment did.

But this is not just about one decision of the States and the way it has been misrepresented – there have been many such cases. States members, for example, did not vote for a pay rise; we rejected it. HSC are not responsible for nurses’ pay; P&R is. This is also about people in positions of influence not checking their facts before publicising a myth – please can we have less of this so that we all can start with the same facts. This will enable ideas based on those facts to progress; it will enable the making of the speedy decisions we all seek.

DAWN TINDALL,

2, Clos de Bas,

Green Lanes,

St Peter Port

GY1 1TS.