John le Fondré's Statement - A Review

John le Fondré’s Statement – A Review

Inclusive – what does it mean?

Senator-Elect John le Fondré begins with a statement that: “My vision is for a society which is inclusive and enjoys a good standard of living.”

Now the word “inclusive” suggests a society in which there is discrimination is fought against, and this was emphasised by Senator Gorst in his statement five times, several times in the context of building an inclusive community, and once in the context of equal marriage laws.

The word “discrimination” does not occur once in John Le Fondré’s statement, and he is currently, in the run up to the election, being criticised and vilified on social media and even in the JEP - by Andy Jones, who has said  “Will that message be that Jersey’s assembly is going to place those supportive of religious bigotry at the pinnacle of its government?”.

This is because of Le Fondré’s part in bringing a scrutiny proposition for debate which sought exceptions for suppliers of goods and services with regard to gay marriages. In some cases, the language has been intemperate in the extreme, but I suppose that is the nature of social media.

Now a previous candidate in the Senatorial elections, Moz Scott, has taken the very sensible step of testing some of those allegations. In the group “Politics Jersey”, she commented:

“I found out last evening that I’m the only member of the public who has asked a gay member of the new States Assembly, who served in the last States Assembly with John Le Fondré, whether he considered John Le Fondré to be a homophobe or not from his experience of JLF. Surely, this has to be relevant in appraising JLF’s ability to work in a team with people of all backgrounds?”

“The person I spoke with informed me that he has worked well with JLF and does not regard JLF as a homophobe. Like me, he regarded the proposed Corporate Scrutiny Panel amendment on religious grounds as more appropriate for a backbencher’s proposition. He informed me when he discussed this with JLF, JLF

said that he had been reluctant to do this in case he appeared homophobic (so much for that).”

"Accusing someone of being a homophobe based purely on their action without exploring their personal conduct towards members of the LGBTQ community is like accusing someone of murder without exploring whether they might be guilty of manslaughter. You need to be informed about a person’s state of mind to determine whether that person is a homophobe, even if that person makes a bad decision that supports homophobic behaviour."

I think that those judging John le Fondré should perhaps listen more carefully to his peers, who knew him from the last assembly, and will be in the current assembly, who is gay. That seems to me to be a far better litmus test of this particular criticism, and I think Moz Scott was very clever to do that.

However, it has to be noted also that there is far less about a fight against discrimination in his manifesto.

Opportunities for all States Members

“I wish to return to long term thinking, and working far more collaboratively with the whole of the States Assembly. Some of the strategies below will only properly bear fruit after this States has finished, but we should be bold, and aim to set the foundations for a successful future.”

“I commit to ensuring that ALL Ministerial Decisions (exempt and non-exempt) are provided automatically to the relevant Scrutiny Panel, with the associated supporting documentation.”

“We have members who have vast experience in marketing and creativity in general, and I want to use those skills to produce an innovative and well developed communication strategy to better communicate with the public of this Island.”

“I wish to create a structure that permits proper, and early, engagement with Members and Scrutiny to allow consideration of policy under development. I will consider the establishment of Policy Development Boards, which will be intended to allow the involvement of back benchers in policy development (whilst preserving their independence), possibly with other relevant stakeholders. We must however ensure we do not breach the Troy Rule or the general principle that Scrutiny Panel members should not end up scrutinising something they have previously been involved with.”

One of the things which has struck me about Ministerial government is that while Scrutiny has a role to play, effectively half the talent of the States is being wasted.

Just by way of example, and I do realise it is an easy case to put, someone like Deputy John Young. When he lost his seat in the 2014 election trying for Senator, he became virtually snapped by Alderney to work as Islands Planning officer to produce their 2017 Land Use Plan and implement planning law reform. John has had a career in UK local government finance, John became a top civil servant in Jersey, law firm and finance industry manager, and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants among other professional qualifications. And yet in the period from 2011 to 2014 was not even made Assistant Minister. That is surely a huge waste of talent.

The introduction of Policy Development Boards seems like a constructive way to harness the talent of backbenchers before propositions come before the States.

The abject failure of some propositions is only too plain– waste charge on businesses, health charge on everyone, the site of the hospital on the People’s Park, the first attempt to finance the hospital which was eviscerated by amendments from the Treasury Minister himself.

There has to be a better way to bring propositions and for the States to work in a more collaborative way. Whoever becomes Chief Minister would do well to take this on board.

Taxation

“I support a system of taxation that is low, broad and simple. I am not generally supportive of new ‘user pays’ charges being introduced as measures to raise revenue. We need a cohesive tax system which is modern and fit for purpose, in the changing environment in which we live.”

The Council of Ministers has seen various stealth charges introduced, or attempted to be introduced. Long term care charge (LTC), which we were always told was a charge and not a tax, has since been declared by a judgement of the Solicitor-General to be a tax, albeit a hypothecated tax (in laymen’s terms a “ring fenced tax”.

We all knew this because the basic rate of ITIS is 21% and not 20%. LTC is itself complex as it has its own set of upper thresholds, complicating tax calculations on assessments. The tax system is certainly not nearly as simple as it could be, and pretending the base tax rate is 20% is quite honestly dishonest.

And this could almost be seen as a direct challenge to the way in which incremental so-called charges have been mooted (and sometimes passed) over the last three and half years:

“Any changes in tax policy require careful consultation in particular with industry and stakeholders and should not be changed ‘on the hoof’ which then raises the risk of unintended consequences.”

It is noteworthy that the words “tax” and “taxation” with regard to Jersey’s domestic economy simply don’t feature in Ian Gorst’s statement. It begs the question: why not?

Population

“I consider Population to be the most critical internal issue facing this Island, and a Policy Development Board specifically for population will be one of the first to be created. This will consider the policy that has been lodged (P70/2018) in greater detail; properly communicate and consult with key stakeholders including industry; but also ensure that we have adequate data to ensure we understand the consequences of any decisions.”

Population increase at its current rate is simply not sustainable, but care needs to be taken to control population and provide alternatives for migration from the local labour pool.

This came up time and time again at the election, and really very little work has been done to examine the issues involved, and produce some kind of model that enables us to see the skill set across different industries and different size businesses within the Island and what incentives and training can be given to encourage more local skilled workers. George Osborne’s apprenticeship levy on large businesses, defrayed if they provide in house training and advancement, is perhaps one string to the bow.

No politician is going to have all the answers, and it will be a careful balancing act to work out a flexible policy that can adapt swiftly to changing circumstances, but at least John le Fondré is looking at it as a major issue, not something which is deferred and fudged.

Public Sector Reform
“As a whole, I anticipate receiving initial data as to the likely savings arising from the Public Sector Reform program within the next few weeks. These will have a significant impact upon future expenditure plans and targets.”

This is perhaps the most interesting area – we have been promised savings from Public Sector Reform – considerable savings by Charlie Parker. We need to have some kind of measurable timetable, and ways of measuring the efficiency of the reforms “behind the scenes”.

Both John Le Fondré and Ian Gorst mention this. Ian Gorst speaks of “new CEO’s vision for modern customer-focused, digital, value-for-money public services”. Visions are useful as broad strategic aims, but we need to have some feedback – after all Charlie Parker has been working away for some time now with his “wise men”, and we need details on how that vision should be implemented.

In conclusion...

John le Fondré’s lack of recent involvement within Ministerial Government has advantages and disadvantages. He has less experience of the way things work, but on the other hand, he can bring a fresh perspective to the Council of Ministers, and hopefully some fresh blood too.

His statement is far longer and more detailed that than of Ian Gorst, and that reflects the fact that he cannot allude to past leadership using shorthand. But it is also more noticeable that it features key items which came up at the election, some of which seem singularly absent from Ian Gorst’s agenda.

As anyone who watches “Yes Minister” knows, it is the civil servants who provide the underpinning for a government, whoever the Chief Minister and Ministers are, and even despite Charlie Parker’s reforms, it is there that some real continuity will be found in operational management from day one. So while a different Chief Minister will have to "find his feet", this is not an unsuperable obstacle.

When Ian Gorst stood against Sir Philip Bailhache, back in 2011, neither had much to call on in the way of experience of Chief Minister, even though Ian had been Social Security Minister. In 2014, a backroom deal was struck between Senators Gorst and Maclean which meant that there was no opportunity for change.

This strikes me as the first time we have actually an opportunity for a debate, quite evenly balanced, between continuity and change, but if change does come about, I am sure that Senator Le Fondré will be capable of facing the challenges ahead.