Guernsey Press

Economic escape velocity lies east – if we allow it

No, really, government is doing some good things if we can see through the current elector fatigue. But the real danger is what a fractured Assembly does when it’s time for difficult but aspirational decisions to be taken, says Richard Digard

Published
(20724451)

I DON’T know if you’ve noticed, but one of the biggest surprises about this States of Guernsey is that no one’s describing it as ‘worst ever’. That is not, however, a good sign. Quite the reverse.

The reason is that those of you who follow these things have now stopped being surprised by what the Assembly gets up to. Plus, some of its behaviours over the last couple of years have been so off the scale that ‘worst’ is no longer adequate to describe it.

It’s true that over the decades we’ve had policy disagreements in the House but today it’s a fractured Chamber like never before. And, as I previously quoted insiders who experienced it, one where some members will vote purely to ‘get at’ another member or committee.

The election of a new president of Education Sport & Culture was a vivid illustration of that.

A further demonstration of the divisions within the Assembly was the launch of the Charter 2018 group of 11 deputies apparently opposed to the left-leaning, happy-clappy tendencies of some of their colleagues who obsess about eco-inclusiveness at the expense of the island paying its way and investing in its future.

Anyway, I mention this simply to set out some context and background for what comes next: some positive news. Government is currently doing good things on our behalf that risk being obscured by the prevailing sense of elector fatigue and disbelief.

The other danger is that while Guernsey desperately needs to hit escape velocity to get the economy back on track, States factionalism may coalesce to prevent it for narrow, tribal reasons that have nothing to do with the best interests of the island as a whole.

Those interests include maintaining an open economy and the ability to react in turbulent times. Something, incidentally, which Dr Andrew McLaughlin and Professor Geoffrey Wood, authors of the island’s annual Independent Fiscal Policy Review, say are fundamental to the success of Guernsey.

Other factors include increasing the number of people here: ‘Population growth remains below the States’ target to ensure fiscal stability and more needs to be done to increase the island’s attractiveness to immigrants and those already living here. Government should maintain a grasp on the priorities of the local economy through consulting employers and businesspeople,’ they say.

Also, ‘the Digital Sector Strategic Framework Document shows that the government is attempting to increase the diversity of Guernsey’s economy with suitable high value, low footprint economic activities. This is key to the island’s long-term prosperity.’

There’s more from the Two Wise Men but the gist is clear: sitting back and doing nothing isn’t an option if the island wants to claw itself out of the recession the then GDP reporting system didn’t spot in 2012 and return to active growth.

Two significant developments could enable that to happen.

The biggest bit of news in the Policy & Resources Committee launch of a multi-million pound investment fund wasn’t just that £25m. has been made available to support and facilitate innovation, welcome though it was.

Instead, it was that fund manager Ravenscroft has secured millions in additional support from the private sector to work alongside that from the taxpayer.

In other words, members of the business community can see the island has a future and are prepared to put their own money into helping guarantee that it has.

The second was chief minister Gavin St Pier’s update on the harbour action area and the fact that the States has made its enhancement and that of the eastern seaboard a priority.

As he put it, ‘there is also an opportunity for us to demonstrate a different component of Guernsey’s identity: that we can be aspirational, and courageous – and create a legacy for future generations to enjoy, just as our forefathers did for us’.

Not only has a cross-committee working group been formed for the harbour action area, it has also had discussions, we’re told, with interested parties.

While no details of that have so far emerged, it is not difficult to speculate what happening behind the scenes. Infrastructure groups exist that look at different jurisdictions and float various schemes that might be of interest to them, especially if they are fully costed and funded.

In Guernsey’s case, it’s pretty easy to identify needs and requirements – Amec did it back in (I think) the 80s with a massive reclamation plan and Charles Bilson did it more recently with his less intrusive Little Venice proposals. That led to the States starting to develop a strategy for the eastern seaboard as far back as 2006.

Those talking to the States today are likely to have seen the need for deep water berths and a longer ferry terminal so we’re not limited to the size of vessel we can accommodate. Brittany Ferries anyone?

And if you’re going to facilitate the actual berthing of the increasingly important cruise liners, why not plan to supply or victual them too? While you’re at it, supplying water and electricity provides an income stream and it means no pollution because the ships’ generators aren’t needed while docked.

St Peter Port is already developing as a staging centre for super yachts – without proper facilities for them. What might we attract through a properly designed seaboard plan, one that enables off-island owners to fly here and take advantage of local waters with our easy access to the other islands and France?

St Sampson’s Harbour has the problem of being tidal and Environment is already talking about how to accommodate fuel tankers in the future. Yet the scope exists to create, in effect, a new deep water harbour that could take all the island’s commercial traffic, freeing up St Peter Port for other uses.

I don’t want to overdo the ‘what ifs…?’ but, unlike previous proposals, technology today would allow the tidal generation of electricity off Belle Greve Bay and, depending on how that was done, establish flood defences for the east coast.

Again, that’s something Environment is currently proposing but by building a seaside wall, with all its impact on views towards the islands.

Anyway, all I’m trying to indicate is that there’s plenty of scope for the ‘aspirational and courageous’ approach mentioned by Deputy St Pier.

In addition, the innovation fund indicates there’s private money out there willing to underwrite it, at the same time as the two wise men scrutinising the island’s fiscal policy say that action is needed to stimulate the economy.

In short, opportunities exist to lift the island’s economy but ultimately it’s likely to come down to whether a factional Assembly will prefer to support change and innovation or decide that their own individual agendas and populist causes take priority.

TALKING of agendas, there seems little doubt that the code of conduct complaints against Deputies Heidi Soulsby and Barry Brehaut were malevolently motivated and designed, as the Art of War has it, for harrying your opponent.

While the attempts should – and did – fail, I saw it more as an interesting test of the complaints process in general and the adjudicating panel in particular.

Would, for example, its members be prepared to condemn those making allegations if they were, indeed, found to be vexatious and designed to cause reputational damage?

What would it make of a minor being involved in the process? Is there an age below which a child cannot object to a States member’s alleged conduct? Could, say, a class of kids raise hell about a deputy while being encouraged by adults?

But that would be manipulation, so how credible would a complaint by a private citizen be if it emerged that they were being encouraged by other States members? Or that a deputy had drafted the wording against their colleagues?

All of this was ducked by the panel of course and we’re left with the uneasy thought that no one or nothing is trying to improve standards in public office.

I mentioned the Art of War earlier, an ancient Chinese military treatise that apparently still has a profound influence on Eastern and Western military thinking, business tactics and legal strategy.

I have no idea whether it touches local politics but is it correct that it was frequently quoted around the committee table of the previous Education board?