‘Needs’ must run ahead of ‘wants’ at our harbours

ALONG with many others, I was completely dismayed at the outcome of the harbour development debate. The decisions made quite clearly show that most of the members voting did not understand the seriousness of the situation – for which one only has to consult the Island Risk Register. How worn out do our facilities have to become before action is taken? Most of our biggest risks are maritime, yet we continue to do nothing to address or resolve them. The elephant is hiding behind the sofa. We all hope and pray that the worst will not happen, yet unfortunately, ‘I told you so’ is always too late. To plagiarise Deputy Queripel, there is quite a difference between ‘want’ and ‘need’. In this case, most of the ‘wants’ are readily achievable, but are consequent upon the ‘needs’ of the island being addressed first. A more substantial marina facility in the pool is nice to have but adds to the operational difficulties of using the existing ro-ro ramps. Put another way – would the States have voted to increase risk and reduce commercial access to St Peter Port? I think not. A suggestion to deliver all fuels by isotainers to St Peter Port – simple – yet look at the quantities and associated risk profile (never mind the additional traffic). Really? Engineer out the problems, not engineer them in. A committee to consult further? The shelves are groaning with more than 30 years’ worth of consultation and reference documents. Who on Earth else can there be to ask? Why will a different set of political appointees come up with any different results? Look at the blue economy – yes, indeed, loads of opportunities there, but how does this keep us fed and housed? First, let us resolve the fundamental needs of the population. Can we afford to do it? If we cannot, we are admitting that we cannot afford to support our way of life – time to leave the island maybe? Remember, 98% of everything arrives by sea. The thought that the airport might be a realistic alternative is absolutely laughable. It is no wonder that Deputy Roffey became so exasperated. Both his committee and the public expected more – far more. The can has been kicked down the proverbial road for both long and far enough. It has now been kicked into the sea and has become part of our democratic process garbage. For goodness’ sake, high level decisions require a strategic understanding and approach. This was never going to be a beauty contest, yet we witnessed an unbecoming, nit-picking, amateurish tit-for-tat personality debacle. I would like to think that I can tell my grandchildren that the island is in a better place now than when I was born – but sadly and truthfully, I cannot. Will my grandchildren be able to make a more positive statement to theirs? We still have 19th century structures, 20th century work practices and 21st century problems – so I expect the answer is no.