By Richard Digard
Silly me. There I was gearing up to have another look at Jersey’s and Guernsey’s inability to co-operate on something as vital as shared ferry services when it became clear over the weekend that the only issue that really mattered is something that hasn’t happened.
Yes, I mean the proposed defenestration of the Bailiff as Presiding Officer of the States of Jersey that has been pulled because it stood no chance of being approved by Deputies, no matter who was chairing them.
Six pages of analysis in this newspaper later and we know in technicolor detail the cases to be made for a) retaining the Bailiff as head of the legislature and b) for removing him or her. This is odd, you might think. How can there be such compelling cases for both retention and abolition unless neither side has what you might call a knock-out punch?
Put that to one side for a moment and there are several truisms we can reach. The first is that while most Islanders here and in Guernsey probably have a view on the issue, whichever way a decision went wouldn’t materially spoil their breakfast.
The second is that the strength of calls for an elected (or otherwise appointed) chair of the States tends to be in direct proportion to the amiability or otherwise of the Bailiff at the time. The heat in both islands for change cooled markedly during the time of Sir Richard Collas in Guernsey and Sir Timothy Le Cocq in Jersey, and this tells you quite a lot about some of the motives for change.
A third truism is that if you were designing a parliamentary system from scratch today, you certainly would not have a chief justice heading an assembly of lawmakers for reasons that are obvious to just about everyone these days.
That alone might be reason for change. However, what both islands have demonstrated to the wider outside world is that the system can be made to work and the separation of legislature from judiciary maintained despite the Bailiff acting as Presiding Officer.
Why I wouldn’t change things now is simple. Such autonomy as these islands enjoy is based on a historic anomaly and a direct relationship with the UK through the Crown. As the years tick by, that relationship looks increasingly anachronistic.
Worse, with every change of UK government, knowledge and understanding of it becomes weaker and, if it prevents Whitehall or Westminster from doing something it desires, increasingly irritating.
So diluting that 800-year-old Crown Dependency connection by diminishing the role of the King’s own appointee and first citizen in the Island seems to me to be an unnecessary act of potential self-harm, especially if Jersey was to go it alone, with Guernsey retaining its Bailiff.
Which brings me to what I really wanted to look at this week – the inter-island split over what was supposed to be a joint tender process for lifeline ferry services. A split, I predict, that will also be one of future self-harm.
What’s unfortunately inescapable is that this botched attempt at co-operation has significantly damaged insular relations – not to mention inter-island travel – just when the need for government savings through closer working and gaining joint economies of scale has never been greater.
In the absence of a fully independent cross-island review of the tender process (incidentally, something I believe Guernsey would welcome), we’ll never know the full story behind what’s been called “Ferrygate”.
What can be said with some certainty, however, is that there was a ten-month, scrupulously managed, tender process that led to both sides ruling out DFDS for significant legal reasons. In turn, that created a situation in which there was only one other credible operator left to select.
Guernsey was happy to accept the bid from Brittany Ferries because it was the only one on the table that met the island’s then tender requirements, as detailed in an 81-page document that set out exactly what the islands demanded from an operator. The document, under eight separate headings, also codified how the bids were to be evaluated and scored.
As we now know, that forensic and exhaustive process didn’t produce the outcome Jersey wanted. As a result, it was apparently possible to rerun an invitation to tender procedure, obtain bids and evaluate them in just two weeks compared to the previous ten months.
This impressive feat of compression also led to the same bidder that had been disbarred on legal grounds now being assessed by (presumably) the same lawyers as good to go. Odd that, you might think. How could it happen?
I make no claims or allegations over this, but the simplest way of achieving that would be to drop or modify the legal parameters that led to DFDS initially being failed. If you take the view that no credible or responsible government could possibly manipulate a level playing field in such a blatant manner, then there has to be another explanation. It goes without saying that I’d be pleased to hear what it is.
Quite a bit has been made about Guernsey’s alleged conflict as a result of its involvement with the ferry Condor Islander. Despite what has been said, Guernsey has not loaned or provided any money to Condor to buy a ferry.
What actually happened is that a stand-alone company bought the ship, financed by a loan from Guernsey, which therefore owns 50% of the company. The loan is secured against the ship, meaning that if there is a default the loan can be repaid via its sale, or the ship can be leased to another company.
No money was loaned or given to Condor and I understand that the deal has been structured so that in the now unlikely event of Brittany Ferries/Condor going under, ownership of the vessel defaults to Guernsey – it would not form part of any liquidation process.
Well, so far so technical but what can we conclude through the fog of this ferry war?
From Guernsey’s perspective, Jersey has proved an unreliable partner, willing to rerun a tender process to get the outcome it wanted. From Jersey’s point of view, Guernsey’s self-interest over boat ownership and rigid adherence to process risked saddling the islands with an inferior ferry service for the next 15 years.
This summary may not be strictly accurate but I think it’s pretty close to the perceived view. And since perception is reality, it’s not a happy conclusion to a pretty serious attempt at co-operation between the islands.
As I’ve said here before, all the evidence suggests that these islands need to collaborate to mitigate costs, especially relating to maintaining self-governing status, and benefit from economies of scale that a population of nearly 170,000 can win.
That will happen only if both islands can rely on the other to enter discussions in good faith and be open to reaching a workable solution. In other words, each has to trust that the other will do what’s right for the combined community, not just for itself.
Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have happened here and will blight any future attempts to get the islands to work together.
-
Richard Digard is a former editor and director of the Guernsey Press and Star and has recently retired as chairman of Guernsey Post Ltd. He has been a Douzenier of the Vale Parish in Guernsey since 2016 and is a consultant and media commentator.
