Политический эксперт призвал к реформе комитетской системы правительства Гернси ради устойчивого будущего

It would be convenient to trot out that old adage ‘the worst States ever’ given the polarised views this Assembly now finds itself with. However, the state of our States is a reflection of a much deeper problem going back a long time. Guernsey has lost its way. For we seem to have developed an expectation of entitlement alongside our traditional culture of independence. We are not alone in this. Most of the EU also has an unsustainable dependency upon their national governments to provide services which have continually removed responsibility from citizens to the centralised state. If a European ‘superstate’ cannot get the sums to add up (and let’s not forget the financial basket case that is the UK), then how on earth does a totally sub-scale island of some 65,000 souls expect to do so, while delivering anything like comparable (and equally unaffordable services)? Yet we could have options to deliver a sustainable future economy, but not if that seeks to mimic the provisions to be found in these substantially larger countries. But the heart of the problem is clearly one of public expectation. Plus, I would suggest, an entirely inadequate method of government execution that did not evolve sufficiently following the financial crisis of 2007/8. I am talking specifically about the committee system, but more of that in a moment. Entitlement Younger readers and newcomers may not be aware of the 1960s Guernsey, where growing and tourism were the main industries, although we did have a reasonable (albeit specialist) manufacturing sector in the form of a large American company called Tektronix, which built oscilloscopes. Population was somewhere north of about 45,000, swelled quite a lot in the summer season by visitors and workers. But there was no finance sector. Finance meant higher purchase or discussions with your bank manager. Births remained at least around replacement level and often above, which in part drove the construction of social housing sites such as the Genats and the requirement for the hastily-constructed La Mare de Carteret primary and secondary schools by the mid-1970s. Attendance at university was the exception, not the rule. Exiting secondary education was generally at age 15 and if you did not want to enter the building trade or the growing industry as a labourer, you sought out an apprenticeship, entered retail or opted for a ‘white collar’ job in the States. But you certainly did work. Life was not particularly easy financially, but neither did you expect things like regular international travel (especially with only two weeks annual holiday). But an affordable place to rent, or a plot to build on (with the help of friends and a States loan) was largely accessible. Somewhere along the line however, Guernsey started looking towards the UK as a model for what government should consist of and what islanders ought to expect to be provided. The decline of growing and the fortunate, timely rise of an entirely new finance industry changed the skills needed. But it also necessitated a complementary increase in immigration to service it. Those necessary incoming workers from larger jurisdictions may well have had some bearing on the growing expectations of what facilities and services should be available locally. In tandem, we also found ourselves having to comply with a whole raft of international rules and regulations that moving from traditional industries to a predominantly service-based economy demanded. It is hard to recollect that the subsequent ‘loads-a-money’ 1980s was the birth of a gravy train that produced a great deal of the reserves (until 2007/8), we have been quietly spending for a very long time since to help maintain the standard of living that is now considered a right by many. So much so that many islanders may have lost sight of the essential link between taxation, the cost of demanded services and the ability of an island-sized economy to provide them. But demographics cannot be denied either. A society that requires funding for the needs of an increasingly older population from a decreasing number of younger, taxpaying workers is going to hit a wall eventually. That wall has now been identified to be as soon as 2031. We are blessed with lovely sandy beaches, but surely we are not an island of ostriches? Changes have to be made to the composition of how we fund this permanent societal shift. The committee problem We can argue about how we go about solving the imbalance between revenues coming in and soaring costs of public services going out. But we have all elected deputies over many consecutive assemblies into a committee-based government structure that militates for consensus over leadership. Essentially, nobody is in charge but all are responsible. If government merely had to oversee the provision of a given set of services that did not alter (or need to), then this consensus approach might be able to lumber on. But the financial crisis of 2007/8 put paid to what was evidencing evolving challenges to the historic status quo – and have become manifest ever since. We have tinkered with committee mandates. We have introduced island-wide voting. But we still elect individuals largely based on their views about individual issues rather than any holistic plan for our island’s future, presuming that somehow, any one individual can effect a promised change unaided (by or in contradiction to) each of the other 37 wannabees with their own agendas. Add to this that, once in government, they are shepherded into a number of individual committee pens (or cells), being let out once a month to exercise with their fellow inmates (except in August). Hence individual committee ambitions or needs are the order of business – not the prioritisation of or agreement about – what the island may need to have addressed now and especially to ensure provisions are made for a sustainable future. The aforementioned financial crisis, Brexit, Covid and the war in Ukraine have also had real consequences for Guernsey, not least in terms of cost of living, depleted reserves, housing and little real growth in the economy. Trust and transition It is blatantly obvious that public trust in government has eroded and the July tax debate also provided ample examples of a lack of trust across and among deputies themselves. What’s to be done? Well, the reality is that having now begun the tax debate it has to be seen through to some sort of conclusion. But autumn will also bring the annual bun fight which is the Budget. Furthermore, those particular discussions have had to be conducted absent any certainty over the outcome of any change in taxation. On top of which, there is an extant programme of capital expenditure that this Assembly has also agreed (foolishly in my opinion, given it did so before this crucial tax debate). Transition to what though? The first thing the public needs to insist upon is substantially fewer deputies. I would argue that should also complement a re-configuration of the present committee responsibilities anyway. However, in order to rescue public trust we need an external scrutiny body capable of analysing government figures, to re-assure islanders (independently) about projections and existing costs – our own Office of Budget Responsibility. That would need funding of course, however that alone would dispense with at least three deputies. I would recommend a future hybrid election to consist of 20 island-wide deputies and 10 parish deputies (a net reduction of eight as a starting point). A reorganisation of existing committee mandates to a more logical re-alignment. For example, redeploy ‘employment’ from Employment & Social Security to Economic Development. Put social services together with Health & Social Care. After all, they are both dealing with what might be termed ‘benefits’. I would give serious thought to any extension of the hospital without a greater focus on establishing it as a training establishment to include essential on-site housing. The creation of a new Guernsey utilities organisation that brings together Guernsey Electricity and Guernsey Water – who largely have the same customers anyway – but who run separate but common overheads like billing and transport. We need a P&R which comprises representation from each of these re-organised committees whose responsibility is policy prioritisation and resourcing. Overseeing the successful delivery of services to be the primary responsibility of those other committees – not policy development. I have more detail on this on my website. However, the point I am making is that Guernsey needs to adapt to its changing demographic and the extraordinary changes continually evolving in the outside world. A committee system which emerged after the Second World War that, despite reorganisation and reduction, still does not enable holistic decision-making (above and beyond ad hoc policy letters being brought individually to the Assembly) is no longer fit for purpose, in my opinion.