Ian Gorst's Statement – A Review

Ian Gorst's Statement – A Review

I’ve been looking through Senator Gorst’s statement for the States to vote for him as Chief Minister, and there are certain matters which I think bear scrutiny.

Why no change earlier?

Part of the main issue with any long term Minister or Chief Minister is that while it does take time to implement change, certain long term issues should have been dealt with long before. This is the issue with Ian Gorst’s continuing as Chief Minister, but it would apply equally to any long term Minister.

Terry Le Main, for instance, was Housing President from 1999, and then Housing Minister from 2005.until 2010. The lack of a proper maintenance programme on social rented housing – which had to be taken up by Andium Homes, could hardly be laid at the foot of his predecessor when it came up

An example would be

“make progress in implementing an effective population policy that serves the needs of our island’s economy, without adding to pressure on our housing, public services and environment.”

An Interim Population Policy was introduced between 2014 and 2016, but when that ran out, nothing was put in its place.

It does appear that on population policy, which was mainly assigned to Senator Gorst’s right hand man, Senator Paul Routier, nothing much was done beyond 2016. That remit came beneath the Chief Minister’s department, so why was nothing done?

In May 2017, Ian Gorst told the JEP that he intended to have an interim policy in place while the negotiations continued which could be revisited once the UK has left the EU. “'I would like to be able to have a debate in this Assembly on this issue in July. Factoring in scrutiny, it may not be until after the summer. However, I will undertake to lodge a population policy prior to the summer recess.'

But that never happened.

A new migration policy has now been proposed, and was put in place to be debated by the outgoing Council of Ministers, but it is not to be debated until September 2018, well after the summer recess of 2018!

I am always wary of phases that seem to be culled from Yes Minister like “make progress in implementing”. Why not simply “implement an effective population policy”? It seems like another excuse for delay.

I was struck in the election campaign how extraordinary little there was in Kristina Moore’s manifesto on population and migration, and here I see something of the same. 

I hope members raise this in the Q&A as it seems an area not included in his post-election timetable (“Within three months... etc”) which I think it manifestly should be.

Word and Deed

Senator Gorst mentions

Throughout my time in the Assembly, I have focused on three core areas, and I will do so again.

He lists them and this includes:

“promoting a fair and inclusive society, which supports the vulnerable, raises standards of living for families on low incomes or who find it hard to make ends meet, and where discrimination in our island community is always challenged

“supports the vulnerable”

One of the key features which came up time and again at the Hustings was the Andium Homes raising rents to 90% of market value which impacted considerably on people in social housing.

Another change was the removal of the Christmas bonus which came back as means tested only from a backbencher proposition, and likewise the retention of the means tested TV licence for pensioners over 65 again from a backbencher (Judy Martin) when the Minister (Susie Pinel) wanted to remove it.

“raises standards of living for families on low incomes”

The Social Security Minister also removed income support from adults under 25 living at home. This was not just a reduction, which could be seen as reasonable, but a removal, which meant that the cost impact of a young adult at home would be wholly borne by the family, while at the same time, an under 25 living in rental accommodation would receive income support.

But on the other hand....

“discrimination in our island community is always challenged”

And in this respect one might hold up:

“I have championed the rights of minority groups, sponsoring the new equal marriage law, and taking action against discrimination”

Unlike John Le Fondré, whose Scrutiny proposition served to delay a new marriage law, and actually would have pushed back the boundaries of toleration, Senator Gorst has been determined to drive that through.

“a proven track record of standing up for vulnerable people,”

He also pushed through firstly the Care Inquiry, prevented attempts to derail it over funding, and after publication worked hard implementing the Children’s Commissioner and has been determined not to allow the recommendations of the Care Inquiry gather dust in a filing cabinet.

This has not always been popular as within his own Council of Ministers there was dissent. But I felt, and still feel, this was genuine moral leadership of a kind not seen before by Chief Ministers.

It was, as he told me shortly before the election, “a once in a lifetime chance to get it right”. It is extremely likely that without any other Chief Minister at the helm, that chance would not have been taken up so firmly, although some credit must be given to former Chief Minister Frank Walker for promising an independent inquiry.

However, the former Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur not only tried to renege on the promise made that there would be an independent inquiry - Senator Francis Le Gresley had to bring a proposition to bring it about - on the morning before the inquiry results were made public, he was still stating on BBC Radio Jersey that he didn't really think it would accomplish much or would reveal anything we didn't already know. That was a complete antithesis of moral leadership.

So, going back to Ian Gorst – a mixed record on Word and Deed. Where he has been the driving force for change, the two appear well-aligned, but when Ministers have been responsible, as seen in the examples given above, what actually happens goes in the opposite direction to the rhetoric.

The fact that his nomination paper contains Ministers and Assistant Ministers, some of whom may well retain their current portfolios, does not bode particularly well on that score. There does not seem to be engagement with the "new blood" in the Assembly as yet.

And in conclusion...

“I believe that I have shown integrity and good judgement throughout my terms as Chief Minister, and that no-one doubts my personal commitment to serving our island.”

On that statement, I think his judgement has at times been somewhat poor, as for instance judging it right to bring in collective responsibility at the start and then deciding it was actually a bad idea right at the end. I have no problem with that at all: something tested may look good, but until implemented it is hard to see how it will work out.

But it is notable that it took until 2018 for a proposition to remove it to surface, and that he makes no mention of learning from his mistakes.

We all make mistakes, but I would like to see a Chief Minister who made a more explicit acknowledgement of those mistakes, rather than the vaguer statement with an implicit suggestion that he could have just "done better":

"The Chief Minister must show leadership in decision-making, but also leadership in listening – to Ministerial and States colleagues, to stakeholders and to islanders. I commit to doing better within a more inclusive framework."

But on his integrity, or personal commitment to serving the Island, I have no doubts whatsoever. If he does emerge the victor, we will have someone who can be a firm negotiator on Brexit. Also, albeit late in the day, (probably because he had to wait for John Richardson to retire) managed to get the first real chance for a ground breaking and much needed reform of the public sector from the top by Charlie Parker - the top layers of management usually goes untouched but reformation is badly needed there, rather than with those who toil at the rockface, and who need more support and encouragement.

Will the electorate be happy if he succeeds? A lot may depend on how the new Council of Ministers is less of a citadel, from which backbenchers are excluded,  from which propositions come forth like shots from a cannon, and how much is done to engage with the considerable talents of new States members across the political spectrum in the formation of policy. Will we see the "more inclusive framework"if he is Chief Minister? Let's hope so.