Deputy’s writings should examine his own track record

It is appreciated that Deputy St Pier probably did not write the totally inappropriate headline, but it really brings to the fore the lack of editorial judgement by the Guernsey Press editor of allowing any sitting deputy to have a regular column in the newspaper, especially ahead of each States meeting. Sitting deputies have their own social media platforms on which to express their views. There are multiple former deputies, several of which remain unemployed, who have ample time on their hands to provide their commentary and there is no reason at all to use current deputies, especially one who seems to be totally obsessed with maintaining his media presence and one who, in the eyes of many, is doing himself far more harm than good to his image and reputation by adopting his current tactics.

For a man who in his own words, ‘presented the previous eight Budgets’, it is interesting that he seems to have little sympathy for a new P&R of just some five weeks’ existence having to present a Budget before even having had a chance to look properly under the bonnet of what they have inherited. Indeed, Deputy St Pier does admit that ‘this new government could literally have done anything – and in doing so additionally blamed any measures on the inheritance from its predecessor’. Maybe it was simply too soon for that. Or maybe this new government is trying very hard to avoid a repeat of the toxic last Assembly presided over by Deputy St Pier, but who now seems determined to pour fuel on the fire at every opportunity. I am sure that this will be remembered by many voters in the 2025 election and in subsequent votes for presidencies and committee places.

For Deputy St Pier’s column to be worth reading, maybe he should consider focusing instead on things many of us really would like to read about, and which of course have a far greater impact on the current Budget than the issues which seem to concern him now. Here’s a few suggested topics to start with:

n Aurigny becoming such a financial basket case, endlessly providing them with loans and loan guarantees with seemingly no cohesive business plan in place?

n Why did the last two P&Rs allow the size of the public sector to mushroom out of control, with a resulting spiralling of cost, and despite the CEO of the Civil Service undertaking to make a cut of 200 staff in 2018 with a resulting cost reduction of £10m., since when the public sector has actually grown by more than 120 staff and the States payroll has increased by some £23m. (not including the Agilisys staff)?

n Why did the last two P&Rs, having approved in 2012 the sum of £1.2m. to be spent on converting the States annual accounts to IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards), fail to get to 2020 without this yet in place? The current audited accounts, as a result, understate the States of Guernsey’s assets by at least £4.6bn (real estate and pension scheme assets plus STSB assets) and its liabilities by at least £2.7bn (public sector pension scheme liabilities plus Aurigny plus goodness knows what else). The States accounts are not fit for purpose using their current chosen accounting policies, and that was agreed back in 2012. Why has it taken another eight years and is still not in place?

n Why was spending on our infrastructure totally ignored by the last two P&Rs? We are supposed to spend a minimum percentage of our GDP each year on infrastructure but it seems that we may have fallen short by some £291m. over the past two terms. How and when was the inevitably required catch-up likely to happen?

n Why were committee budgets continually approved by the last two P&Rs when those budgets specifically ignored provisions for maintaining our existing infrastructure, thereby merely bringing forward the required need to replace our existing fast-crumbling infrastructure, let alone any spending on vital new infrastructure? It is a false economy to boast about achieving a large revenue surplus when nothing is being spent where it should have been spent.

n Why did the last two P&Rs deem it appropriate to simply use the blunt tool of endless tax increases on fuel, alcohol, tobacco and TRP to squeeze ‘middle Guernsey’ rather than carry out a far more wide-ranging review of our tax base? Sure, the need to widen the tax base was indeed raised several times by Deputy St Pier, but it has never actually happened.

It would seem that all of these issues were buried in P&Rs ‘too difficult tray’ for the past two terms, but when the new P&R seems determined to lift up the carpet to see what has been swept underneath, it seems rather a misguided cheap shot for Deputy St Pier to snipe at a new P&R which has barely got its feet under the table.

Maybe there is a need to fill space in an inappropriate newspaper column and for Deputy St Pier to try being controversial in order to stay in the limelight, but ‘busy doing nothing’ tends to be far more of a reflection in the mirror when the last two terms of P&R are properly assessed. Maybe there was far too much distraction from escalating debates on assisted dying and on hugely expensive social policies which we could not afford then, and certainly cannot afford now.

Yes, if Deputy St Pier’s columns were to look back honestly, ‘warts and all’ at the last eight Budgets that he presented, then they would be well worth a read. However, the contents of his first two columns clearly indicate a totally different agenda and should be culled immediately. The good thing of course is that such columns invite comments from readers and so will very definitely be held to account. It goes with the territory.

DAVID PIESING