Monday 15 January 2018
Speech by Deputy Gavin St Pier
Thank you Martyn for inviting me once again to speak, and let me wish everyone a happy and successful 2018.
This is a time of year when we all naturally reflect on the future. The challenges to come, the opportunities to capitalise on - what we want to achieve and how we want to achieve it.
That's as true of government as it is of your businesses.
It would be fair to say that our government in Guernsey faces many challenges. But we also have opportunities. We have a plan of what we want to achieve, though perhaps - as I'll set out today - we don't necessarily have consensus yet on how we best achieve it.
Education. A clear economic vision. Transport links. Demonstrating that we are open for business. Brexit and the EU.
These were some of the challenges we faced this time last year.
None of them have gone away, so let's talk about them.
Education
This week, the States debates Education's policy letter on a new structure of schools in Guernsey - the three-school model. It's no secret that in the previous States' term I gave my support for Education to do this work. To me, and to many others, it was clear that before we thought about the estate, we should consider outcomes, and that we should make a decision on educational policy, including selection - which we have now done.
As Education's work was undertaken, it became clearer to many in the States, that this once in a generation opportunity should be taken to consider other approaches - a two-school model, or a single school on two sites.
A number of Deputies were prepared to lead that work - the so-called Alternative Model - and the Policy & Resources Committee provided the additional funding requested by Education to enable them to support this work.
There are some who have criticised the Policy & Resources Committee for providing that support. Not many, but some. My question to them is this: would the better approach to have been to shrug our shoulders as a government and say "sorry, but we don't have the inclination or resources to ensure that we make the best possible decision"?
So, in two days' time, the States will consider two policy letters - Education's policy letter, and the Alternative Model.
The Policy & Resources Committee has shown the leadership required. It has provided support to ensure that the fullest possible set of options, at this stage, can be looked at. It has, in my view, played a part in keeping the focus on children and not buildings; on outcomes and not architecture.
The clear message from the Policy & Resources Committee is that our community now expects us to make a decision. Having decided to end selection, what will we replace it with?
Our parents need to know. Our teachers need to know. Our whole community needs to know. There is no more long grass to kick this particular ball into. We need to show collective leadership.
We need to make a decision. And then get on with implementing it. And the States needs to coalesce behind the implementation.
Please be assured. When a decision is made, we will ensure that the transition to the new model is resourced fully. But before we can plan for transition, we need to make a decision as to what we are transitioning to.
I have said many times that value for money is not about the cheapest model - but the one that will produce best outcomes in the long term.
Education globally is constantly evolving to meet societies' changing needs. For example, England is introducing T Levels from 2020 to replace many vocational qualifications. Guernsey is not immune from this. So it is important that the model we adopt is the one with greatest flexibility to adapt to those changing needs.
Dennis Mulkerrin said 7 years ago that children are the most important people in a school - and teachers are the most important assets. So we need to get the politicians and politics out of education and give the teachers the autonomy they want, to do what they do best - teach.
Whatever the States decides, there is more work - a lot more work - to do in order to implement the decision.
That is why we need to make the right decision this week.
If we do not, we will rightly lose the faith of parents and teachers across the community.
If we do, we can set a tone for government for the remainder of 2018 - that we are prepared to be bold, brave and have the courage of our convictions.
Economic Development
This week's States meeting may, or may not, be asked to consider the Economic Development Committee's Economic Vision.
It may not if the Education debate is lengthy.
And it may not if the new Committee decides to defer its policy letter to a later States' meeting.
The view of the Policy & Resources Committee is that the latter approach would be a good decision.
There are ideas with merit in the economic vision policy letter. But in many respects it is no more than a re-tread of the Committee's own policy plan which was agreed by the States six months ago. It does not move us on.
The Policy & Resources Committee's view is that there has not been enough consultation with other parts of the States. This was an opportunity to provide a government-wide vision of how we build a strong and sustainable economy over the next ten years, building on new technologies and existing expertise. Instead, the vision is too narrow, too long on words and too short on substance.
That narrowness is perhaps best epitomised by the vision's failure to articulate a model of delivery based on partnership. The vision as set out is about what Economic Development will do to the economy; it is not about howEconomic Development and the States will work with the Chamber of Commerce and the private sector to deliver a brave and ambitious vision.
It is, in many respects, a missed opportunity.
Deferring the paper in order to overhaul it will not have a negative impact in the short-term. Economic Development's important work continues in line with its agreed policy priorities.
For example, there is significant ongoing work on our digital strategy and on the skills agenda. None of that good work is going to stop.
But in the long-term, the absence of a clear vision is damaging. How can we make decisions on air and sea links, on ferries and runways, when there is not a clear vision of the type of economy that we, collectively, want to build?
We need a manifesto for growth and public-private partnership. Not a consultation paper that will lead to a suite of boundaried strategies.
On Wednesday, Deputy Parkinson, Deputy Dudley-Owen and Deputy Mooney will have two new members of the Committee to work with. Collectively, they will have the opportunity to press the 'reset' button on economic development. And they also have the support of the Policy & Resources Committee and the Chamber of Commerce to be truly big, bold and brave in their vision.
We, in the States need to support all of you, in ensuring that we are open for your business needs.
That is why the Policy & Resources Committee is leading a review of the population management regime. Our next meeting is tomorrow, and the Committees for Home Affairs, Economic Development and Environment & Infrastructure are part of the review.
It is vital that we have your views over the coming weeks, so that we can ensure we understand what will be needed to ensure that we remain fully open for business.
All of the Committees are listening: please give us your views.
Brexit
The challenges for 2018 include, of course Brexit and the EU.
On Brexit we continue to work closely with Jersey, and with Whitehall and Westminster, and with the City of London.
We are talking to businesses and to business bodies about what they need - what are the opportunities and what are the threats?
Next week, I will be in London meeting UK Parliamentarians to further ensure that they understand that we have shared interests, and that in a post-Brexit world, Guernsey is very important to the UK.
Also next week, Guernsey Finance has Miles Celic, the Chief Executive of The CityUK business body, as the speaker at its annual update to industry here in the island.
In some respects it is an irony that it has taken Brexit to emphasise to the UK the importance of our close working relationship and our complementary, highly synergistic economies.
The same, of course, is true of the EU economy. Guernsey's finance sector plays an important part in the EU's capital markets, providing capital for investment in jobs, businesses and infrastructure.
It is, however, safe to say that while many Member States understand what we do and how it is a good thing, the European Commission has not yet had that Damascene moment.
Back in November, I met with EU Tax Commissioner, Pierre Moscovici. He lauded our openness and transparency, our commitment to the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting agenda and to the development and implementation of international standards.
In early December, the EU Council of Finance Ministers reaffirmed that, by actively deciding that Guernsey was a cooperative jurisdiction, not a tax haven that should be out on list of non-cooperative jurisdictions.
So let's make that clear for the record. The EU Council has reaffirmed that Guernsey is a cooperative jurisdiction.
That's an achievement - but as ever in Brussels, there is a sting in the tail.
To stay on the cooperative list, we - along with dozens of other non-EU jurisdictions - need to take some actions; in our case, to ensure and demonstrate that businesses here have economic substance.
That would be hard enough, but it is rendered even harder by the fact that the EU has not yet defined substance. Some of its Member States have definitions of substance, but the definitions are not uniform.
So while we continue to work on that conundrum with Jersey, ahead of our first dialogue meeting with the Code Group, we are also working with the OECD in order to input into a working group, that is seeking to provide a global definition of substance. As ever, we will be pushing for a global level playing field.
After all, it would be grossly unfair if the definition of substance applied to Guernsey and Jersey, was different to that applied to Luxembourg and Cyprus.
So Brexit and Brussels provide challenges for us too.
And as we work to meet those challenges, it is vital that we have a clear vision of how we can develop and grow our economy.
We have opportunities too.
Harbour Action Area Enhancement
One of the biggest opportunities we have is the potential for enhancing the harbour and the eastern seaboard.
We have established a States' working group on this, bringing together Policy & Resources, Economic Development, Environment & Infrastructure and the States' Trading Supervisory Board.
This is not so that we come up with the thinking and impose it on the community.
This is so that we get our house in order - and ask the right questions.
How do we decide what enhancements we want as a community? What are the resourcing requirements to bring those ideas to life? What are the delivery requirements? Or the legal requirements that we need to resolve? How do we ensure the Island Development Plan is an enabler, rather than a barrier?
At the IoD debate in October, panellists talked about how major infrastructure projects need ten years. How do we establish a delivery vehicle, that is accountable to government and the community, but also has the capability of rolling across government terms, providing the certainty and stability that investors will need?
The enhancement of the harbour and eastern seaboard is now agreed by the States as a policy priority. I hope, therefore, that we will have the answers to some of those questions by the end of this year - and indeed will have started work on some of the projects possible within the whole scheme.
The challenge for us in the States, is to work closely and effectively with partners such as the Chamber of Commerce, and to ensure that our community plays an active part in this development.
The opportunity to support our economy through the enhancement of the eastern seaboard is only one aspect of the challenge - albeit a very important one.
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.
Working with Jersey
Last year when I spoke to the Chamber, I set out my hopes for a truly collaborative working between Guernsey and Jersey. A transformation in joint working is yet to happen.
But while in Brussels a couple of months ago, Ian Gorst and I took the opportunity to explore what worked and what did not work between us - and why; from that we developed a shared vision for joint working between our islands. One that is co-ordinated by a handful of our most senior civil servants, rather than being left to individuals or departments to engage bilaterally - with good intentions, but with a full day job and without a plan. And it's a vision that has governance embedded at a senior political level.
I am pleased that the States' Chief Executive Paul Whitfield shares that view, which he set out here a few weeks ago. I am also pleased that his new counterpart in Jersey, also has the same view, and just a few weeks into his tenure as Chief Executive of Jersey, is already working with Paul on a plan for joint working.
The opportunities to work with Jersey are huge. Not just efficiency savings, but greater effectiveness.
In short, we are not giving up; we are doubling up our efforts. I hope that Policy & Resources will be able to bring something to the States on this matter shortly.
Policy & Resource Plan
I mentioned at the start that we had a plan.
Since I last addressed a Chamber lunch, the States has agreed the Policy & Resource Plan.
We agreed 23 policy priorities to deliver a happy and healthy community - one built on a strong economy and sustainable public finances.
The plan did not emanate from P&R or civil servants. It was built on the Committees' own policy priorities, agreed by the States last June.
It includes the States of Guernsey's first medium term financial plan, which includes targets for savings and increasing revenue - and on which the 2018 budget was based. The medium term financial plan provides a clear path to sustainable public finances, including the States' capital spending priorities.
The States signed up to this, and now it has to deliver against it. In June, the Policy & Resources Committee will report to the States on the progress that has been made across the 23 areas - and this is a step change in transparency and accountability.
And in the background, the Policy & Resources Committee has been quietly, but effectively, modernising government and governance in Guernsey.
We have carried out a review of the relationship between States of Guernsey and St James' Chambers.
We are establishing a social investment commission to oversee grants to the third sector.
We have reviewed the probate function and the Ecclesiastical Court and will present proposals for reform to the States shortly.
We have established a service area to support reviews and tribunals in a consistent way, which in turns supports good government. This has all been done, without calling on any additional resources.
Furthermore, recognising the need for improved and consistent governance with statutory bodies, we are about to embark on a review of independent agencies, such as statutory officials and appeal tribunals.
Political reform
But despite all this, and despite a strengthened economy and a return to modest fiscal surpluses, all is clearly not well in the State of Denmark - or more accurately, the States of Deliberation. The political system right now feels febrile and toxic. Much of this I think, stems from highly charged emotions around the politics of the education debate. But that does not explain it all.
There is criticism of my leadership and that of Policy & Resources, not because we are failing to provide it - but simply because those who criticise, do not agree with the leadership being provided. Whether it is giving advice on the oversight of the Public Trustee, on funding the further work on education that I spoke about earlier, or speaking out against an unethical public relations campaign: those criticising our leadership, do not like the views that we have expressed.
What those who criticise are not donig, is offering an alternative, considered and productive view of the future.
In my view, all this derives from our system of government - which takes 38 independents, pounding the streets one day and - ignoring all prior observational experience - expects them to form a cohesive, national government the next. I think there is a good reason why our system is unique and has not been copied by other jurisdictions: whilst it is pure and has a number of advantages, at its heart, there is the inherent dysfunctionality by which our government is chosen.
I was involved in the redesign of the structure of government that took place in May 2016. The slimmed down structure is undoubtedly more logical and coherent than that which preceded it; but I was never of the view it was a panacea. Our government will only ever be as good as the capabilities and capacities of the individuals that comprise it.
Layered upon this is the impact of each individual's ethics and integrity. You cannot design bad behaviours out of a system of government.
For a number of years, as many of you will know, I have felt that our democracy needs to move to the next stage of its political maturity and development. I think coalitions between individuals, based on shared values and ethics - and some core policy positions - is the next logical step in our political development. To be clear, I am not talking about the formation of political parties, and so what I am talking about is not as big a step as some may think. Informal coalitions already effectively exist between some groups of politicians. The difference is, these tend to form afteran election, rather than beforeit.
I believe this development would improve the transparency of choice for the electorate at the time of an election; and I believe it would improve the coherency and effectiveness of government after an election.
I hold these views now. But I will hold them even more strongly if we move to an electoral system which contains any elements of island wide voting. Be under no illusions: a full blooded, pure island wide system in which each voter is given 38 votes, presents systemic risks for government in Guernsey. That sounds apocalyptic - so let me explain my fears. In practice, very few voters will use all their votes. The consequence of that, will be that a handful of candidates - perhaps 10 or 12 - will probably romp home and be elected with a very high number of votes; whilst it will become eminently possible for those at the bottom to be successfully elected with just a handful of votes.
That will almost certainly produce some very odd results, making the coherence and effectiveness of government even more challenging in the future. Even if a hybrid electoral system is chosen, with just a few seats elected island wide, the absence of a policy basis to the election, will make them popularity contests. And I know I do not need to elaborate on the impact of populism on global politics in recent times...
But I am not without hope. As I have observed politics in the last couple of months, I think we have reached a natural, evolutionary turning point. From conversations I have had both in and outside the Assembly, I think the time is now right for change. I think there is a sufficient groundswell of opinion from those who want a new kind of politics:
- politics that is positive and forward-looking for a better future; not negative and craving for a bygone era, selectively remembered;
- politics that is more focussed on policy development and making tangible improvements than on politicking.
- politics that is rooted in values, ethics and integrity.
- And, most importantly, politics which is broad-based and has solid roots in civic society, not a skin-deep, personality based, populist agenda.
I have stood on this spot before and made a call to arms. I've said that if you want to change the nature and effectiveness of politics, you need to stand for election yourselves. I have come to realise that this is a hopelessly idealistic expectation. Most sensible people, most of the time, don't have the capacity, resources or inclination to put themselves forward to join an inherently frustrating and dysfunctional organisation whose effectiveness is impeded.
So my call today is different. It is simpler and easier. It is this: if you share my concerns, if what I have said has resonated with you and if you too, want the kind of politics I have described, I want you to do just one thing.
Let me know. Contact me. By text, email, phone or through social media. That's all I ask.
