Views of a backbencher
THIS letter merely seeks to set out some musings of mine on my 20 months or so back in the States of Guernsey as an elected Member. It also seeks to right a few misconceptions.
I am one of the fortunate ones. I was born six years after the end of the Occupation. The Occupation was an event which was unprecedented and hopefully will never be repeated in the many centuries which will follow. It and the Second World War generally shaped history. To our Bailiwick, albeit unknowingly at the time, it changed us. We were a very insular community. Now we are a jurisdiction that has connections and interests throughout the world. Overall our population is much more prosperous for the majority than it ever has been.
When I was born the population was significantly smaller and the pace of life more gentle. Life though was undoubtedly harder for most. Power and wealth were vested in a relative few.
My generation did not know it then but we were to become so privileged. We had opportunities open up to us that previous generations could only have dreamt of. We ended up having the opportunity to buy our home and a comfortable one at that. We had had the opportunity of a free education. When at 21 I was called to the English Bar I was debt free. From a working class background I studied law. I was able to do so, not because of the financial support of my parents because they could not provide it. I was able to be so educated because of the taxpayers of Guernsey who paid in full for my education. I am so grateful to them.
Qualifying as a lawyer opened up opportunities which would not otherwise have been available to me. When I became an English barrister, again there were opportunities which would not otherwise have been available to them. I enjoyed very much my time as a lawyer in England. The experience I had in England has without doubt benefitted me very much indeed in the now very long time I have been a Guernsey advocate.
Britain though in the 1970s, when I was a lawyer in England, was in a mess. The country was bankrupt. Enterprise was spent. Bureaucracy and negativity abounded. Aspiration and hope were seemingly words of the past. Thus in 1979 I decided to return to Guernsey which I did the following year. Again opportunities beckoned. At that time there was a shortage of advocates. When I was called to the Guernsey Bar in March 1981, at the same time as my long-time friend Steve Denziloe, there were only just over 20 advocates, and some of those were semi-retired. It was a truly wonderful time to be a lawyer here. I am not here just referring to the chance to earn good money, but to the excitement of working in a developing legal jurisdiction. I was very privileged to be working with people such as Nik van Leuven, Roger Perrot, Rupert Evans, Garth Bainbridge and Peter Harwood, to name but a few ¬ but to me an important few. I also will always be grateful to my first senior partner in Guernsey, the gentle and decent Percy Ozanne. He was the first advocate called to the Guernsey Bar post war. I believe he was called in his RAF uniform in September 1945.
Now the world has changed. The problems we face are not unique to this Bailiwick but nevertheless they are problems which we must face. Very few predicted the financial crash of 2008. Very few also predicted that we, i.e. the world, would still be dealing with the consequences of the crash, nearly 10 years on. The likelihood is that we will still be dealing with those consequences for the next 10 years at the very least.
Little did I think that now, and for some years before now, youngsters would have to pay for the tertiary education. That is now mainstream policy in most jurisdictions. It probably is an economic imperative but it saddens me. There undoubtedly are parents who can help their children but that is not true for the majority. So people from similar backgrounds to the one I come from are much more disadvantaged than I was.
Admittedly I was not living in Guernsey at the time but I was able at 22 to buy my first property with a 97% mortgage. At the time I thought I would never be able to pay it off. Twenty five years to do so when you are 22 seems forever. Many years on I subsequently spent more on a table than my modest first property cost me. I remember how life was when I brought my family to live in Guernsey. The family at that time comprised me, my wife, and our then three children. Number four came along later and he was born in Guernsey. When we came back I had had to spend from February to the end of June studying in Caen. I had to finance that myself. We had no income. My wife was left to sell the property in England, buy one here and move the children, the furniture and our dog Roger. I popped over to Guernsey from France to see my parents and the bank manager. I had been with the same bank since I first had a bank account. I had never met this manager before. I went to see him and said I needed a loan to buy a house. I told him I had a family but would have no income at all until sometime into 1981 when I hoped to qualify as an advocate, and all my family had to live on was the equity from the sale of the property in England. I should add that my wife worked nights at Le Platon while bringing up three children. Her job would now be called a care assistant. She did that while I worked and studied for the Guernsey Bar and we were living on the equity from our English property. I will digress. I thus smile inwardly when I hear now 30/40 something women in the States say how stressed and busy their lives are now and how they have difficulty in fitting in this committee meeting or that one. I again inwardly compare their relative struggles to that of my wife back then.
Anyway digression aside, the bank manager said ‘How much do you want? I am sure you will be good for it.’ His judgement was good but I thank him for his decision. It enabled us to buy a very modest home in Vale Road. It is also true that we were all faced with interest rates in the 70s, 80s and 90s on our mortgages of sometimes 15 to 18%. We were though always confident, hopeful and aspirational. That was in Guernsey in the 80s and 90s the go go attitude. That was also very much the attitude of our Guernsey based law firm. The moon was our ormer.
Nowadays young people would not, unless they had affluent parents who would guarantee the debt, be able to approach a bank manager as I did not far short of 40 years ago. He would not in any event now have the autonomy. There is very little autonomy vested in local bankers now. A young person now would have to fill out lots of forms and produce lots of financial information to be able to borrow a much lower percentage to value of the property. True interest rates are much lower, but that means little if you are unable to save up a large deposit.
It is also true that in Guernsey we still have a relatively high percentage of owner occupiers and that is great. Again though, and like in other places, it is truly more difficult for young people to buy a home than it was for my generation. I feel sorry for people elsewhere with that difficulty, but I am much more concerned for the young people faced with that difficulty in this jurisdiction which was so kind to my generation.
We also live, at least for the moment, in a jurisdiction with full and well paid employment. That compares favourably with almost anywhere else. That said, I believe as a general statement, that the opportunities now for advancement for young people are more difficult than when I was at that stage of my life.
Hence I feel justified in being able to say that I was very fortunate to have been born both when I was and where I was. I was part of the lucky generation.
I have previously served in the States as an elected representative. Firstly from 1994 to 1997 as a Castel deputy, and then from 1997 to 2000 as an island-wide (including Alderney) elected Conseiller. The composition of the States then was different. I am not just talking about the numbers. It included elected deputies, Conseillers and douzaine representatives. I served on many committees in those six years. I mention just two. I was from 1997 to 2000 president of the Board of Industry. That committee had a variety of statutory responsibilities for things such as Weights and Measures and Employment, but was also responsible for the development of most of the non-financial sector. I was also, during the same period, one of the seven members of the island’s then senior committee called Advisory and Finance.
I found it an exciting time to be a States member. The Bailiwick’s economy was growing. It was a time for change and opportunity.
Personally in social matters I have always been a liberal. The States should only interfere with the lives of people when absolutely necessary and then as little as possible. The States rarely knows best. A person’s religion, sexuality, mores and choices is a matter for he or she and not the State. There are some limits which are necessary in any civilised society and if a person commits a serious crime then they deserve proper punishment, otherwise people should be left to live their own lives.
In my first tenure in the States I felt there were in social matters some almost neo conservatives. To them change was bad. The word of the Lord was paramount, whatever that meant. I have always respected people’s religious beliefs. Religion gives many people their moral compass. It gives them security and hope. The fact that I am not a person who believes in a deity does not stop me respecting those that do. I stop short of respecting bigots though whether that bigotry emanates, as it sometimes does, from a narrow and fixed religious belief or otherwise.
I highlight three instances from that time of social change which all had some opposition.
The first was the change to our abortion laws. In the 1990s our abortion laws were terrible. They were unfeeling, unrealistic and based on outdated bigotry. I favoured and helped champion the change. I can remember receiving much personal abuse for so doing from individuals outside of the States. I can remember hearing in the States some speeches which would have made those who wrote the Old Testament seem extremely liberal and enlightened. Thankfully at the end of the day a decision was made and the law was changed for the better.
The second related to a debate on the age of consent for gay men. I favoured it being exactly the same as for heterosexuals. How and why should it be any different? It was in fact much more restrictive. Again we had Old Testament speeches. The States at that time came to a ‘compromise’. The age of consent was reduced to 18. I thought, as I have written, that it should be the same as for heterosexuals, that is 16. Thankfully it is now the same but liberalism, common sense and respect for the choice of a person took longer than it should to be established.
The third and last that I mention was the equivalent of a private members bill or, as we call it, a requete. I led one to change the procedure in matrimonial cases. Up until the change which I was successful in bringing to the States, the procedure on a divorce was archaic. Even in an uncontested divorce the Petitioner still had to actually turn up in court and give evidence before a judge. It was awful. The Petitioner would turn up with his or her advocate. When he/she got on depended on the seniority of the advocate. It was not uncommon for over 30 divorces to be listed for hearing at one sitting. That meant some people had to wait hours. Also people would sit in court waiting for their petition to be heard. They would hear men and women have to recite the personal circumstances of the breakdown of their marriage knowing it would be their turn soon. It was uncivilised. People would be variously nervous, upset and distressed. Thankfully I managed to persuade the States that the procedure should change. There were still a few that voted against it and the judiciary of the time, decent people that they were, but men of a certain age and religious conviction, were opposed to it. Since then such cases are dealt with on the papers without the Petitioner having to appear.
The States now is more liberal in such issues and I am pleased about that. I have not grown, despite the years advancing, less liberal in that regard.
By contrast though the States of my previous tenure were mostly more business minded. Not out of any self-interest but because they realised that before you could save or spend money you needed to create an environment to earn it. They were far from perfect but they genuinely and in the best interests of the public made common sense and business minded decisions. I contrast that very much with the equally well-intended current States of which I am a member.
I left the States at the end of April 2000, not out of frustration but because at that time it was not thought to be a cardinal sin if you, while a States member, did other things. My main other thing was being a practicing advocate. I was, am and always have been a litigation lawyer. That means you need to go into court. I have always been busy as a litigation lawyer. By 2000 I realised I could no longer do justice to my work as a politician holding senior positions and as an advocate. I was not willing to sacrifice my livelihood. Also I had a very decent chance post April 2000 of being president of Advisory and Finance. I simply thus could not continue to do both. I chose the law, but hoped at some time in the future I might return to the States.
That return took a bit longer than I anticipated. When I came back I was careful not to promise too much in my manifesto. In fact in reality I promised nothing other than to use my best endeavours. The reason for that was simple. Although I was an interested but no avid observer of political issues, I knew full well that until you were on the inside you did not know the true situation on any major issue. I expected challenges. I knew that the world’s major economies were languishing. I knew growth was limited. I knew that Guernsey’s main business ¬ the finance business ¬ was under far closer, regular and more jealous scrutiny than ever. I knew that would now change. I knew we faced major difficulties concerning tourism and connectivity by sea and air. I knew bureaucracy was much more prevalent. After all, the biggest growth in employees in the finance sector was in compliance. They are (sadly in some ways) a necessity but they detract from the bottom line and encourage an anti-initiative culture. All these things were known to me. I came in as regards those issues and others with my eyes open. Subsequently, and just into the lifetime of the new States, we were unexpectedly foisted with the problems concerning Brexit. It produced a result unexpected even by Messrs Johnson and Gove.
I should also say this. The 40 people who are all elected and with whom I have worked since I became a States member again are all decent and committed people. I say 40 deliberately because it includes the brief time in this term of the late Dave Jones. A splendid man and a great loss to any States.
I should also emphasise the following. Guernsey, unlike most other jurisdictions, has ‘savings’. The majority of those are the funds in the Civil Servants’ Pension Fund and the monies set aside for the old age pension. If no further funds are put into the Old Age Pension Fund there would be sufficient to meet about five years’ future payments. The UK old age pension by comparison is paid from general revenue. No savings there then to help pay it. Despite though our relative good position, because of our ageing population, again a common problem, the Old Age Pension Fund will eventually run out, unless what would have been thought to be unacceptable solutions even a few years ago are implemented.
We have full employment. We have a good and free from corruption legal system. We have a Civil Service that is again absolutely free from corruption. We have a very safe and secure environment. We live in a decent and civilised society. We have no capital taxes. We have, still, relatively low direct and indirect taxes but again, due to economic necessity, they are higher than they have been for a long time and there is no realistic chance that they will decrease. We thus have much to be thankful for and much to publicise to those who should want to listen.
We are though in a very different world to that any of us of my age group have ever experienced. I mentioned previously Guernsey’s ‘savings’. They have though in recent years diminished in real and actual terms. Unlike large economies such as the USA and to a lesser extend the UK which can borrow with seeming impunity to basic economic principles, we are far too small to ever be able to do that. We have to play by all the rules while others, including the USA, do not because of their size and power. We cannot afford at any time and for any time to be on a financial blacklist. We have few muscles to flex.
What we need to do now, to quote, surprisingly, Leo Tolstoy is:
‘In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work and look around you.’ That would show us what problems we face. These are as follows and this is far from a complete list.
• We have in real terms a stagnant economy. There has been very little if any real growth.
• We have many of our businesses in many sectors struggling. I have had said to me by business operators in almost all sectors of our economy that they are just about keeping their head above water. A lot say that they do not anticipate being able to do so for much longer.
• As part of the above, although this last year has seen a small but welcome growth in tourist numbers, in real terms there has been no significant growth and, despite what statistics may say, there has been on increase in spend. Indeed that is exemplified by recently published data showing a fall in people visiting our tourist/visitors attractions.
• We have problems with our sea and air links. I should add that for such a small population the fact we have such regular connections to the mainland should be welcomed. There are though realistic concerns with both sea and air links.
• We have a construction industry that has been in the doldrums for too long. It is working, I have been told, at no more than two thirds capcity.
• We have the most wonderful (I jest) of policies and procedures and rules which completely stifle growth and initiative because (although we should maintain high standards of probity) we always want to be purer than any Caesar’s wife actually ever was. A small example of that relates to the Education Committee’s (and I know I have not given it its full title) internal deb ate on College funding. Two able and committed Deputies Carl Meerveld and Milly Dudley-Owen had to excuse themselves from discussion on the issue. This was because of some wholly unrealistic rule. I know that the intelligent and articulate Deputy Roffey wrote, if I remember correctly, that such a rule was valuable and this was a good example of its application. I thoroughly disagree with him. The application of the rule was bonkers and so is the rule itself. We have problems with our education system. It was not perfect before, but we as this States have made it worse. A majority, following on from a similar conclusion reached by the previous States, decided to change the system without any ready-made solution. Hence months of uncertainty. Our Grammar School was an attraction to those coming to the island to take up worthwhile jobs, but whose financial circumstances were such that they could not afford to pay for their children to attend the Colleges. That has now been lost. I accept that but with real sorrow. Anyway again I have digressed from my main point.
• We have an Open Market that has been in decline for years.
• We have a general lack of confidence in the economy.
• We have a consensus government that wants to debate to death every single issue, however great or small. It is also afraid of taking any decision that may offend anyone. An example is the almost manic outcry over the non-provision of less than £60,000 funding to the Arts and Sports Commission. We as a committee did so when in early November 217 we were advised by civil servants that this was the best solution to adopt as funds were limited and we needed to be able to show value for money. We were told there were less funds available than had been thought to be the case and thus we had to act promptly and in a different way to that which had previously been the case. From the outcry you would have thought we had taken food from the mouths of children. Politicians generally showed a lack of support. Even after the grants were restored we had the situation in the States that the vice president of Economic, Development had to answer 14 questions plus supplementaries on the topic. It does not give confidence that more difficult decisions will be made. We have a Civil Service that is risk free and not commercial. I do not mean any criticism of any individual. There are very many able and well intentioned civil servants. Our situation is not unique. Civil servants generally by their training and aptitude are cautious and careful people. They give sound advice but to drive things through it needs proactive politicians.
• We have a States that is seen as anti-business.
• We have on occasions at the highest level poor leadership or no leadership. I add that on other occasions the leadership is good.
There are other issues I could address but the foregoing is a good (or bad) indicator of where we are. ‘Ok’, people will say, ‘What is he suggesting.’ I set out some of my proposed solutions. Just before I do that I make one or two further observations.
You need in any government a set of policies that you need to work to. They must never be a straight-jacket though. They must vary or be changed as circumstances demand. They must be practical. They must never be a bar to initiative and enterprise. We have Policy and Resources Plan. It is, in my view, being used as a straight-jacket and as a bar to any kind of growth. It is concerned by those who operate it with the process rather than the substance. We do not have the luxury of time to accommodate such academic and bureaucratic indulgencies.
The second part of this further observation relates to two half days I spent in the summer of 2016 in a room at Beau Sejour with many other deputies. It was the most self-indulgent example of navel gazing I have experienced. It was fruitless and valueless. Our time was spent in analysing and discussing at seemingly the highest theoretical level what our goal and aim was years in the future. If it had involved one iota of practical policy or policies there may have been some value. It did not. Time was spent on split infinitives, where commas should be and what was meant in aiming for a society that should be the, or one of the, happiest in the world. We would have been much better spending our time thinking about practical matters. If you solve practical problems then you have more chance of making peoples’ lives better. That would have been a better use of time and money than worrying ab out a mission statement.
So let me tell you some of the things I am suggesting. I fear few if any will be implemented. These are just a few of my thoughts and ideas:
(1) Sea links ¬ I still have no idea what justifiable reason from the States of Guernsey’s perspective why it agreed that effectively Condor’s fleet of vessels should have been reduced by one. If it had been one in 50 perhaps fair enough. Where here the fleet is so small that one has made a considerable difference. In reality we have been left too often with one fast ferry which has not been as reliable as we or Condor would have liked. That said we have to deal with the situation as it is. The cards have been dealt.
Two things should be said though. The first is that Condor did not deliberately purchase a vessel which may in certain circumstances not be as fit for purpose as it should be.
Secondly, Condor is a commercial company. It needs to make a profit and show a reasonable return on capital involved to its bosses.
Perhaps I should also add this. Guernsey is the smaller of its two markets and predominantly Condor makes its money on freight. Also, as I know from my previous experience as a States member and it is even truer now, we do not have an abundance of alternative providers.
My favoured solution would involve a subsidy and a long term contract with Condor. It would come with conditions. The company would have to provide an additional vessel which was reliable providing adequate passenger facilities on the northern route. That is to say the route that goes to and from England. In addition Condor would during the spring and summer, have to provide a cost-effective inter-island service. I am not necessarily wedded to Condor for that service, but it seems to me it should, with its resources, be in the best position to provide such services.
It also would have to sail, within reason, at times that suit our tourist industries’ needs. I am talking here in respect of all of its services.
We cannot required it but action needs to be taken as it seems to me that sadly the Liberation’s reputation is besmirched beyond redemption. It should be sold or otherwise and elsewhere be deployed.
The fares should be cheaper. If they were I believe we would be likely to attract more passengers. The difficulty is in achieving the balance between affordability and practicality.
All the above and what I suggest as an alternative will cost money. The reality is the States will need to put its hand more deeply into its pockets.
If during 2018 we cannot come to a proper accommodation with Condor we should consider and be prepared to implement even more drastic (as that is what they would be) proposals.
We may need to set up a Channel Island ferry company owned, but never operated by, the States of Jersey and Guernsey. I say ‘never operated by’ because state run organisations rarely work. We would need to seek out an experienced operator to run it for us. That again would inevitably involve a subsidy by way of a management fee and in this instance capital cost. I have my doubts this would work at all or speedily enough. Jersey is bigger and naturally would seek to look after its interests first. Also I have to say although I like and respect my Jersey colleagues, my experience of dealing with them is that they are much more leaden footed and slow moving than we are. My final solution again has risk and cost. That is Guernsey sets up its own ferry company. This also would need a management contract. It would enable us to be the masters of our own destiny. It would though come at a considerable financial cost. That though is the modern reality. I believe, as I wrote above, if we offered lower fares we would get more traffic. We would be able to set times that suited us. We would, in respect of passenger services, need smaller vessels. We also should do our best to accommodate the needs of Alderney.
(2) Air links. I applaud genuinely hard and long the decision of a previous States to buy Aurigny. It secured the Gatwick slots. Without that purchase we would not be flying to Gatwick. Our finance industry would have suffered greatly. The world though also has changed in respect of air travel. We do not have British Airways et al wanting to fly to these shores.
If you look at any day’s scheduled service we have generally only two main providers. Overwhelmingly Aurigny is the major provider followed by FlyBe. Aurigny is asked to fly non-economic routes. That said, there cannot be many financial organisations who are asked to quantify their losses ¬ who then do so ¬ and which are within a short period of time found to be massively understated and inaccurate. The States also cannot carry out further a nonsensical financial exercise of capitalising many millions of pounds of debt and in some way treating that as an asset and then writing it off.
The bald truth is that we need some radical action. We also have to face the financial truism that however we dress it up the taxpayer will need to foot the bill. It will be a very large bill. Every penny though should be spent efficiently in pursuit of its goals. We cannot though just accept a policy of decline.
We also, here in particular, have to recognise the needs of Alderney. We are a Bailiwick. Alderney is as important to us as St Peter’s or the Vale. Alderney does not have a meaningful ferry service. I took a little convincing but now I am an absolute convert. It needs to lifeline air routes. One to Guernsey and the other to Southampton. To achieve that it needs some urgent work carried out to its runway. The good people of Alderney though have to be realistic in connection with timetables and services. The pound can only stretch so far.
We need to be saying to as many airline providers as we can that we want them to provide services and we will as best we can incentivise them. We should listen to what they tell us. We need to open up and have as many strategic air routes as possible. We have to tell them that, within reason, we will endeavour to provide what they want. We need to show that we will listen and act proactively.
We should seek a partner in trying to re-establish a Heathrow link. Aurigny should be retained but re-structured. The Guernsey Air Registry has been a great success. We should listen to the needs of those that use it.
We should grasp the nettle in respect of extending the runway. Unless we accept, with all the damage that will follow to our reputation and standing, that we will become a hub for Jersey. I cannot stress enough, we need to extend the runway. This will involve cost and undoubtedly will have some affect environmentally. An extension to 1,700 metres or thereabouts will add nothing. An extension to 2,000 metres where the airport is currently located would involve too much damage to the environment. An extension to 1,850 metres is achievable and I believe would satisfy our needs for some years.
I cannot, and no-one else can, guarantee that there would be an early return on such an investment. I say this though with a degree of confidence. If we do not carry out such works we will be seen as a backwater. We will not give confidence. We will not encourage any or many new providers. We will be ever more dependent on our current providers. What happens if FlyBe decides in a few years to move on or out of Guernsey?
In years to come as air travel increases elsewhere the cost of flying our small planes into airports such as Gatwick will increase significantly making air costs and flights increasingly expensive.
I would add this about the sea/air links review approved by the States this summer. In Economic Development we were hopeful that the relevant terms of reference could be speedily agreed. Our discussions with Policy and Resources were too lengthy, too delayed and too difficult. That has meant that the review is not likely to report until the last quarter of 2018. That is far too long.
(3) Connectivity. Here I mean digital internet and the like. I am optimistic. Despite some frustrations we have good services currently. They need though to be better. We depend on such services. We need to thus develop and enhance those services in a relatively short period of time, but in a considered way. We should ensure that we do so with a leading provider in a joint government and business initiative. It is important that if we want to show the world we mean business that we are able to do such business in a world class and cutting edge way. We should aim to be as good as jurisdictions such as Singapore in the provision of such facilities. We should be seen to advance this project during the early part of the remainder of this political term.
(4) Our newly introduced Population Management laws should be when the review promised for no later than March 2019 amended significantly to meet the needs of the tourist, retail and care sectors in particular. Such a review though should not necessarily be limited to these sectors. We should be looking to diversify our economy, not just by words but by practical deed. I say more about this shortly. Some of these new industries or business might themselves need labour currently governed by the short-term permit legislation. Guernsey is competing in a difficult marketplace for such labour. We are seen, because of our legislation, to be unwelcoming g. The recently successful Roffey amendment helps in part, but in my view it is a sticking plaster remedy until a more radical solution is adopted.
The concerns expressed against a more radical approach based largely on concerns about population growth are unrealistic. Our population is largely stagnant while the demographics are working against us. Our economy is not sustainable unless we have some realistic immigration and otherwise in due course pensions may not be able to be paid and our lifestyle will suffer. Unless there is a theory of economics that I, as a non-economist, and many distinguished economists are unaware of, there is no alternative. The task generally will be to make sure that as many as possible of these workers are very economically active.
There is though the perhaps separate issue of short term workers. As I have written they are more difficult to find. We need them. The jobs in the industries I have mentioned are largely not filled by locals and will not be. Again we are not unique in those concerns. Where we are unique is making it difficult to recruit a new labour. We all want our hotels and care homes properly staffed. They will not be unless we change. The overwhelming number, as history has shown, of workers in that short-term grouping do not stay when they retire, and sometimes you can and have to have regard to history when looking forward. We need thus to resolve this issue promptly and without compromise.
(5) I wrote above I would have more to say about diversification. Locate Guernsey helps in that but I have favoured, since I came back to the States, a joint non-governmental promotion agency for Bailiwick businesses. This would embrace, but not necessarily be limited to, the finance, tourist and general business sectors. I hoped and expected this to be in operation by now. In my opinion the reason it has not has been the opposition of the finance sector and the concerns of senior civil servants. I am sorry, but bearing in mind those sectors receive significant public monies, they need to recognise the need to improve significantly our promotion of such businesses. We also cannot have civil servants objecting because it wants to protect Civil Service jobs. We need better people and less government interference. I make the point though that a great deal of good work has been done by able civil servants and others. I am firmly of the opinion though that Locate Guernsey, Visit Guernsey and Guernsey Finance should operate under the same non-governmental umbrella. It would bring some economies of scale but, more importantly, it would, if properly implemented, lift the level of success of such bodies to a much higher level. It should be as free as possible from government interference.
I also add a few more words about Locate Guernsey itself. It has been a good initiative and I commend the work of all those who are or have worked for it. It is vital though that it is able to open all the doors that any bona fide new resident or business needs opening. It needs to be resourced better. The way to do that effectively is by the introduction of the body that I have just referred to and then keep the politicians away from it.
(6) I now mention what I regard as the Guernsey factor which has arisen from relative success. We need again not just to talk about it but to do something about it. We have lost job opportunities because we are not seen to have enough skilled people. We must do much better to ensure that we teach people whether as apprentices, IT specialists or otherwise that we need. If this means making the courses more practical and pressured so be it. If it means developing relationships with businesses elsewhere so that we can send people off to work there to learn or enhance their skills we will need to do it.
Much has also been said of the work/life balance. I agree that is important. There is no point working every hour if you cannot spend time with your family and enjoy other pastimes. Successful entrepreneurs often do not achieve that balance. If though people do not or cannot be those entrepreneurs they must realise that there are considerable challenges from outside this jurisdiction by people who often work harder for less money and are just as intelligent. One banker said to me recently the values his staff and they tell him how hard they work. He said though when he steps out of his office at 5.01pm it is as though the cavalry has deserted its post.
What I am gently cautioning is that in this much different and more competitive world, the work/life balance has to be moved a bit more towards the work. What will happen otherwise is that people will have much more free time to ride their bicycles and swim in the sea but the reverse of that is that they will have fewer jobs.
(7) I would like to say little more about diversification. Our recently adjusted statistics show we are ever more dependent on our finance sector than we thought. I am all in favour of doing all we can to protect and develop that sector. I want though, and I see no inconsistency with what I have just written, to spread the risk by encouraging different businesses as well.
We can only do that by:
(i) Asking some of the many talented residents to help us create research and develop such opportunities. We as States members and civil servants, do not generally have those contacts or skills. We need to engage them, tap into their acumen and in some cases pay them to go out and look for such business opportunities.
(ii) When we get such leads we need to assist them by cutting away with bureaucracy; by moving them speedily through the quagmire that sometimes is the States of Guernsey and by wherever possible smoothing any troubled waters for them.
(iii) Being more proactive. This takes me to we need to streamline our planning process and our States business procedures. We need to be somewhat less averse to risk. Mistakes will be made. That always is the case when you encourage decisions to be made. A percentage will be proven to be a mistake. What we currently have is an environment that wants to be completely risk free. The practical result of that is that too few decisions are made and yet we will make mistakes.
(8) We need if necessary, and I think it is, to prime the pump to get the construction industry properly working. Part of that is the speeding up of the planning process to which I have already referred. I give considerable credit to the planners though in the way they have interpreted the Island Development Plan.
It is the process that is too long, whether in changing the Strategic \land Use Plan, or the Island Development Plan or in the holding of a planning inquiry. Speeding up the process would enable a speedier resolution.
That takes me to the Harbour Redevelopment Area. Its redevelopment has already taken too long. A vibrant redevelopment of that area would do wonders for confidence generally and for the tourist and construction industries.
I just throw out a few ideas. We could do more with Castle Cornet. Why could not at least part of it be made available for high quality tourist accommodation? Why could we not come up with even more tourist/historical attractions like these? Why could we not have say a Premier Inn (and no bias in favour of them) facility in Town or at Admiral Park? Why could the States not, if necessary, use States funds to build such a hotel and then rent it out long term to such a hotel group? I am not recommending a spec. build but that now negotiations are entered into with any such interested provider.
We should amend our Tourist Policy and products both to encourage investment and to allow sites that will never be developed in 50 years to leave the industry to be used for other purposes.
We should look to provide
Perhaps new purpose-built high quality museum/art gallery in an appropriate area. We should loosen and/or change the policy which restricts where new office development can take place.
(9) We need to avoid the kind of political comment which has done such harm to the Open Market for years. We need to refresh that market. One step has already been taken in the recent Budget. We need to do more. We need to allow further high quality properties to be added to the stock. We need to give further incentives to encourage a revival of that market. We should ask, as I did, but with few practical suggestions, those working in the Open Market sector and also those living Open Market for ideas.
(10) We need to encourage civil servants to be much less risk averse. I again state we have many good quality senior civil servants. What is at fault is the risk averse nature and lack of commercial experience of the Civil Service. They should be supplemented and assisted on an ad hoc basis by entrepreneurs and experienced business persons from within and outside the Bailiwick.
(11) The States members must decide to be more commercial. As I have said in the States, we do not have trees which grow money. We will only succeed in providing the money necessary for Social Services, Education and Health to name but three important ways for improving lives if we encourage business and entrepreneurs.
That takes me to the Green paper which would already have been before the States if I had not resigned. It was the work of all the political members of the committee and our above senior civil servants. The reason we decided to do it this way was to show what, after 18 months in office, our general, but in a detailed and non-prescriptive way, our views and intentions were. We wanted States members to be able to debate it fully and we were interested to hear their comments. We did not want it amended to death though as often is the case in the States. We wrote in the paper that we would be coming back to the States with detailed proposals on all the main issues with specified and realistic timetables. We did not expect all the States members to like everything. The detailed debate and opportunity for amendment would be when the individual components came to be debated in due course. What we were also asking from the States was what I believe we were entitled to. That is to signify that they accepted we were the Economic Development Committee and thus were entitled to move forward on such matters.
Sadly the initial actions/statements have not been helpful. My successor as president had made it clear he does not like it. Some of the comments he has already made were not factually accurate and others show a misunderstanding of what we were trying to achieve. That said I wish him well and look forward to seeing what he thinks is the best way to develop the economy. It is important though that we do not just hear speeches. We know he is a long-term opponent of Zero-10. I may have missed it but I am not aware of any initiative that he has brought since he came back into the States about two years ago to change it. I may, of course, have missed it, in which case he can corredt me.
Another disappointment is the recent letter of comment from Policy and Resources on the Green Paper. Sadly it is not unexpected. I do find its current senior leadership it is more concerned with form, procedure and ‘consultation’ whatever that means in this context than getting on with the substance needed to invigorate our economy.
I conclude this rather long note by referring to three matters.
The first is a correction to two matters in Nick Mann’s article in the Guernsey Press when he interviewed me about the Ferbrache/Farrell/Public Trustee matter. I did not tell him that my States income was a certain percentage of my overall income. Indeed I stressed the point to him. I said it was a certain percentage of the monies I received both as income and from repayments to me of monies I had lent to various businesses in which I/my family have an interest. There is an important difference.
His second mistake was when he wrote, if I remember correctly, that I said I could earn what I earned as a States member in five minutes. I wish I could. Even in my most golden of days in the past I never could or did earn that kind of income in that time. What I said to him was that I could replace that income in five minutes by getting in early course an opportunity to earn that money. That is where the five minutes reference applied to. It would certainly take a lot longer by a multiple of thousands of five minutes for me to earn the equivalent of my States income.
I am sure they were genuine errors on his part. It probably made the article more interesting, but nevertheless in those particular he made a mistake. We all make mistakes whether lawyers or journalists.
The second matter is the Ferbrache/Farrell/Public Trustee issue. Let me say this unequivocally so that there can be no misunderstanding. There was no actual conflict of interest on my part. I believe the Law Officers could so confirm. I took no part in the Public Trustee choosing Ferbrache and Farrell to act for her. I refer to the quote recently made by the Law Officers. They provide suggestions in certain cases when they do not act. They did so here and the (then) Public Trustee made her choice. I took absolutely no part in the legal work carried out. I received not one penny benefit. I worked as an unpaid consultant (I am not a partner in the firm so do not benefit from its profits) from the time the firm was set up on 6 Nov ember 2016 until the end of 2017. I will be paid from January 2018 a relatively modest income for work I carry out for the firm.
Politically I never sought to influence the committee nor the Public Trustee. When the issue was brought to the attention of the committee I took no part in the debate and considerations, I co-operated fully with the internal audit. I am disappointed with how long it has taken. I have expressed that view to the internal auditor. I was disappointed to hear the report will not be published. That is not my decision. I also asked that documents be disclosed to me because of the passage of time I wanted to ensure my responses were as accurate and helpful as possible and the only way that can be done is to be shown in advance all and any relevant documentary material. That did not happen but I believe it probably makes no real difference.
I say this to anyone. If anyone says in a non-privileged situation that I acted improperly then I will take action if appropriate. A court would then be able to decide. The result of all of this is I resigned from a position that I very much enjoyed because I do not believe I received the support I was entitled to from the Policy and Resources Committee.
My third and last point relates to the four able politicians I worked with on the Economic Development Committee.
The (then) vice president Jan Kuttlewascher is a very able to wise politicians. I was so lucky to be able to work with him. I hope the States soon recognises his qualities and he is able to undertake a senior role which he would discharge ably.
Jennifer Merrett is a very hard worker, able, committed and a fighter. She is just the person you want to go into battle with. She has led on tourist and retail matters with real passion.
Millie Dudley-Owen is bright and well suited to the needs of digital sector, creative industries and the liaison on skills with education. She led well on all these issues for the committee.
Last and not least I mention Joe Mooney. Joe will never take up the time of the States by making lengthy speeches. He is though very wise and business-like. He can sum up most issues with a pithy and often witty remark. He sees the wood for the trees. He has led, and very ably, the committee’s dealings with the construction industry and on E gaming.
I was very fortunate to be able to work with them and I miss my close political dealings with them on such vital issues.
We now all as States members have to work with real diligence and purpose in trying to make a positive difference to people’s lives. We can only do so if we make decisions.
Best wishes to everyone for 2018. It is not an easy time but it is the future we will have to deal with.
DEPUTY PETER FERBRACHE