New paid parking debate will happen
Tuesday 12th January 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
Gandey’s Circus workers clearing the big top from the Salerie car park yesterday. Such areas could become revenue generators when the much-discussed issue of paid parking goes back before the States. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 0899245)
PAID parking is definitely going back to the States for debate.
Deputy Barry Brehaut confirmed he will take a requete to the Assembly in an effort to force the Environment Department to introduce the money-generating scheme. But he does not yet know when the requete will be placed.
‘It’s not a question of if, but when,’ he said. ‘I’m just getting the details together. I’m very conscious that we have the Matt Fallaize requete on the WAO report and the Dave Jones requete on the post office and we’re only in January.
‘I want to ensure that I give myself enough time to liaise with other States members to ensure that any requete is successful.’
Deputy Brehaut needs the support of at least six colleagues to have the matter return to the States. It is understood garnering that backing will be no problem as half a dozen deputies have told the Guernsey Press they would support such a requete.
‘I have spoken to other members and I think it would have broad support,’ Deputy Brehaut said.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Without reference to the specific subject, I have to question the practice of repeated attempts to get something through the States. Surely democracy says that an assembly is elected democratically, debates various matters and makes decisions.
A matter is raised, the electorate lobby, the deputies consider, debate and vote, a decision is made. To then say, “Oh no, we didn’t like that, let’s do it all again” 6 months later seems to be an insult to the original process.
A decision is made and it should stand for a number of years, unless circumstances change significantly such that a further debate is justified.
Make and accept decisions and move on.
Report abuse
Just goes to show that this States are incapable of making a decision and sticking to it.
Report abuse
The exact same thing happened with sunday trading which was repeatedly brough back for votes until finaly it was pushed through.
If the states stuck to their decisions and didn’t keep bring up the same topics over and over again maybe they’d get some work done for a change
Report abuse
Valdubon, very well put
Shame on you Deputy Brehaut for not abiding by a decision of our elected representatives. My other regret is that unless I move house, I am unlilely to have the chance to remove you at the next election!!
Report abuse
Just goes to show what a waste of time the States is.
I guess we’ll have some debate on a casino soon as well……..
Report abuse
All this will do is effect those working in retail, and the lower paid workers. The States need to his those high paid workers, which all have private parking, so this is a stupid idea.
Also, they should learn how to make a decision.
Report abuse
I agree with you both, there are some people in the States who simply won’t accept the democratic will of our parliament. It is going to come up again and I will vote against it again for all the reasons I gave last time.
Report abuse
How many people are like me who believe it is wrong to debate paid parking again now that the decision has been made , but please have another go at getting the right answer to incinerator debate
Report abuse
Personally I’m in favour of paid parking PROVIDED the revenue is ring fenced and put towards an improved bus service, thus providing people in all parts of the island an alternative to driving their cars to work.
Report abuse
Me too Phil, me too.
The times of buses urgently need to be reviewed paying particular attention to the time people actually need a bus to get them to/from work. A more regular service at these times of day would surely see in increase in bus usage. Why can the ‘powers that be’ not see this?
I’ll tell you why. It’s because they don’t (and have no intention) of using the buses and therefore don’t care about those of us that do. That’s why.
Report abuse
Why do all Govts hate income tax – answer because the rich have to pay their fair share unlike indirect taxs where they dont.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones might be able to answer this. Setting aside personal views on the subject. It does strike me as odd that a States Resolution has, effectively, been ignored by a Department.
Why does a Deputy have to bring a Requete to something that’s already been ‘resolved’? A Resolution is the mechanism directing a Department isn’t it?
Debate had, decision made Department get on with it surely?
Report abuse
To paraphrase “The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy” by the late Douglas Adams:
“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the States of Guernsey than we do now.”
Report abuse
The notion that the States cannot make decisions and stick to them has little basis in fact. One could count on the fingers of one hand the number of issues which have been debated more than once or twice over the past decade.
Of course, arguments over important points of policy will often continue over years, if not decades. That is not unique to Guernsey: in party-based jurisdictions there often exists a quite destructive cycle whereby every few years whole rafts of policy change radically back and forth as parties sway between government and opposition. It will happen in the UK if the Tories win this year’s election. Indeed, they will campaign on the basis of dismantling much of Labour’s vision, as Labour did to the Tories in 1997.
The whole basis of parliamentary democracy relies on the capacity of the public to vote for political change at elections, and the capacity of politicians, once elected, to bring about any changes in policy for which they have campaigned and been elected to deliver. The public elects representatives to whom political power is loaned for four years – but ultimately these powers over policy and policy change must rest with the electorate.
Now, if one wished policies to remain unchanged in perpetuity, one might as well scrap elections and abandon democracy.
Twice in my first 18 months in the States I took issues back to the floor of the Assembly – once to scrap student loans (which succeeded) and once to raise the earnings cap on Social Security contributions (which failed, albeit only to be recommended by the department itself and approved by the States at a later date). If any of my parishioners feel strongly that I have failed to represent their interests in trying to bring about these policy changes, they should vote to kick me out at the next election. But can politicians really be blamed for taking to the States proposals included in the manifestos on which they were elected?
Democracy can be awkward and infuriating and messy, of course. And I can fully appreciate that some people speculate about whether the repetitive nature of debates on waste disposal and paid parking necessarily reflect very well on the credibility of the States. But the alternative is to amend the rules of procedure so that democratically-elected members are blocked from taking amendments, sursis and requetes (in effect private members’ bills) to the States, which would be alien to democracy, and incidentally would have denied Guernsey some of the better things the States has done over the years.
On the question of paid parking itself, in my 2008 election manifesto I wrote that I was not persuaded of the case for its introduction. That remains my view. Paid parking on the Town piers alone would appear quite arbitrary; I am uncertain that it would achieve the objectives its supporters claim; and it is not a terribly fair or effective mechanism for raising revenue. However, I do not feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other, and on the more general point of policy I do think we should do more to encourage use of alternatives to single-person car journeys. It is also true that the island’s integrated transport strategy is now desperately short on vision and aspiration, and so I would probably vote for a requete which directed the Environment Department to lay before the States a more sustainable and ambitious long-term plan before the end of this term.
Report abuse
This reminds me of the EU forcing another vote in Ireland and we all know why that was.
Report abuse
We do have what some might think an extraordinary situation here. After due debate, the States resolved we should have paid parking to finance the transport policy and then failed to agree what the charges should be. Lets hope the same ruse is not used to invalidate the decision already taken to deal with our waste.
Report abuse
Neil
The political mechanism for enforcing States resolutions is for those who are angry about the department ignoring the will of the States, would be to bring a vote of no confidence in the board responsible. However that resolution was made in a previous States and no current States can be bound by the decision of a previous one unless of course it has already been passed into law. The newly elected members decided that they did not want paid parking and that is a perfectly legitimate position for them to take. It is no different than a new deputy overturning the Lurgi contract the States has a right to change its mind.
Report abuse
My Requete will seek to find a balance, it is not simply a case of charging those who have no other alternative, nor is it seeking to set punitive rates that will impact on the “low paid retail worker”. Environment have historically been instructed to implement paid parking and have decided, as a committee, not to support previous resolutions, Deputy Steere attempted to amend the last policy letter but the main focus of the debate was on the hourly rate rather than the broader strategy and its aims. I understand the frustration that some feel regarding “how many times do these dorks have to debate something before no means no?” but if a department embraced the will of the house through a democratic resolution the first time round we would not be here now.
I am well aware that this requete could cost me votes, but you cant spend your entire political life avoiding thorny or difficult issues,
cheers, Barry B.
Report abuse
David and Matt
I understand the concept on previous Houses not binding future houses. And, for what it’s worth, don’t agree with paid parking.
You’ve answered the point regarding what mechanisms are in place – a vote of no confidence – but that seems to me a hell of hammer to crack a nut.
Coming out of the commercial world, Boards/Shareholders (States) pass resolutions and (Directors) Departments implement those decisions. It’s the process, we accept those resolutions whether we agree with the decisions or not.
What concerns me, purely from a governance and reputational point of view, is that any Department can effectively ignore a resolution or at least drag the implementation of a decision out to the point that there is a likelihood that an election will nullify or ensure a rehash of that same debate.
My point is less about the politics, but more about the process. We just look a bit hammy sometimes and tightening up some of those processes would be useful.
Report abuse
Hi Neil
During the AFS tribunal earlier this week a simple yet facinating question was asked of HMP (Mr Roberts), in short, what weight does a resolution carry, or to put it another way, does it bind the department? It would appear that the reality is that a resolution is an instruction, request, from the elected representatives to a committee or department, and that’s all, and in an ideal world it should be enough for any committee or department, politicians should respect the collective will of the chamber. (all of the above is my own interpretation)
In my second term as a deputy I have observed that there has been an increasing disregard for established protocols, some departments take a view on, rather than an instruction from a resolution. If the will of the house was respected and the resolution read as an explicit instruction than we would be less open to negative comments for revisiting some issues.And if mandates are respected some situations that have lead to adverse publicity could have been avoided in the first instance.
Perhaps resolutions should read like this in the future “Dear minister me and a few friends met on the last wednesday of the month, we had quite a chat there were some for, and some against, this business of paid parking came up again. The view was that you should have another look at it, but I will leave if with you, see how you get on no hurry or panic” as daft as that may sound its not that far removed from the reality of the situation.
BB.
Report abuse
You have to ask why paid parking should be introduced, firstly if it’s to help run a public transport system then that has already been funded by a small increase in fuel prices from an amendment from myself and Deputy Brouard in the last debate on the subject. If its purpose is to reduce commuter traffic coming into town, then it is discriminatory against all those who work in town who don’t have their own underground parking spaces, nor will it discourage the hundreds of civil servants who have the benefit of free parking spaces at their place of work,so it would fail on that count. It would be basically a tax on the poorer members of our community, many who will have jobs in St Peter Port and will be forced to pay it. If you are reasonably well paid then you won’t use the buses anyway and the cost of running your car will seem insignificant compared to the huge convenience of using your own transport. If you are on a low wage then it will be a fairly substantial additional expense to your weekly bills. In any event it is also likely to cost more to collect than it will provide in revenue. I am also sick to death of hearing that they have paid parking elsewhere and therefore we should have it here, that is not an argument it is just an observation, they have and do lots of things in other countries that we don’t do and we are a better place for it in my view. I said in my manifesto that I refuse to join the ranks of those who want to un-invent the car, bringing in measures that are designed to batter people into submission rather than providing a decent alternative, that simply is not a sensible position to take. People have to go about their daily lives and failure to recognise that personal transport plays a big part in that daily routine is simply not living in the real world.
Report abuse
Deputy Brehaut
What is the States transport policy?
What are the revenue streams you expect from paid parking?
What are the overheads?
When will it break even?
To my mind this is just wooley liberalism and political dogma. And “the will of the States” should be the will of the people of Guernsey – I’d suggest that the majority do not want paid parking.
Report abuse
Barry Brehaut
Surely it should be ‘I and a few friends ‘
Report abuse
I want to leave my private car on public land for free, for the love of God, it’s not too much to ask in this day and age of excesses!? Is it?
What’s all that space for anyway if it’s not to be used as somewhere to leave my possessions while i do something else that is unconnected with my private property and so rendering it utterly useless as a possession for most of its life?
What else could possibly be more useful!
Report abuse
For once, I’m pleased to say, I agree with Deputy Jones – hooray.
However. I’d go one stage further and make this analogy – to introduce paid parking is like completing a suduko puzzle; job done, yes, but what has it actually acheived?
Report abuse
will all states property be payed parkin ie frossard hse and lucas hse or will it be the norm us and them
Report abuse
Neil,
Realistically the sanction for not respecting States Resolutions must be removal from office. And in our political system, the only ways to achieve that are by peer pressure privately, or by submitting a motion of no confidence for debate by the States of Deliberation.
These mechanisms do exist and arguably should be used more frequently. In my view, one important part of accountability is the expectation of being held to account – the threat has to be realistic. And that should include the expectation of facing a motion of no confidence for not respecting a States Resolution or for operating outwith the mandate of your department/committee.
Report abuse
Presumedly the reasons for objecting against paid parking, is the added cost. If anyone on here is worrying about the rising cost of living in Guernsey which is going to get a lot worse, then you should be looking at the Waste debate and writing to your Deputy to ask them to support Dep. Kuttlewasher’s requete. Motoring is going to get much more expensive….. it has to. OUr waste though, is one thing that does not have to if we deal with it intelligently.
Report abuse
Just as a point of order really, but the States has already agreed to the introduction of paid parking.
What they have repeatedly failed to do is agree on a price and a method of charging.
And anyway we already do have at least three paid parking schemes in operation on States owned property.
You pay to park long term at the airport, you can pay for a permit to access private spaces at the harbour, and anybody wishing to park in a disc zone ( should be disk of course but I’m sure none of you are surprised that our government doesn’t know the difference )has to pay for a parking disc …..
Report abuse
Toby,
I think it was two terms ago that the States approved paid parking in principle and then rejected the various hourly rates proposed by the then Traffic Committee.
In the last term, the States voted for paid parking but Traffic’s successors, the Environment Department, did not get around to introducing it before the 2008 general election.
In this term, the newly-elected board of the department made it clear that they wished to overturn the policy on paid parking, and the States duly obliged, voting instead to fund the Road Transport Strategy by additional duty of 1.2p on a litre of fuel (the Brouard amendment).
During all this time of discussing how to fund it, the strategy itself has become unfit for purpose. As I understand it, it is this broader issue that the Brehaut requete will seek to address.
Report abuse
I find it interesting reading all these postings, especially the ones from the deputies. The WAO report has given the States 0/10 for its governance and leadership of the island, and here we are discussing the re-discussion of something that has already been discussed and agreed (well obviously not) on a number of occasions.
Yes mr fallaize may be correct that these issues may be able to be counted on one or two hands, however, I would suggest that it is the big issues, such as waste disposal, paid parking, airport runway repaving (extension) that are the issues where the states are not showing good leadership and guidance to the civil servants. how the hell are they supposed to know what to do, whether the issue will come back and be overturned etc time after time.
Please make a decision and stick to it, move on and deal with the next issue, please govern the island.
Report abuse
Paid parking will achieve absolutely nothing except litter, inconvenience and loss of another little bit of that way of life which most of us value.
Report abuse
I agree with Bob that introducing paid parking would erode that special way of life that we have. When I lived in town it didn’t bother me if paid parking had been introduced because I had my own space but now that I live out of town I don’t agree with it! Funny that is. I wonder how many people fit into that mould, basically if they don’t need to pay for a space they don’t give a monkeys if everyone else has to!
Report abuse
I have been made aware of a young single mum who works a forty hour week in a Town shop for take home pay ,after child care deductions, which just about stays ahead of the benefits she could claim by not working at all.
It is only her pride in being able to care for herself and her child that makes her continue to work.
Punish her by taking just a few pounds a week for essential parking and you will have another ‘scrounger’ on your books
Report abuse
Ogri
I am afraid you are wrong on the WAO report, it did NOT give the States zero out of Ten and Mr Colman the head of the WAO made that clear the other night at the public meeting, he did not even say the States had zero out of six either both these statements were contrived by the Guernsey Press, stickers included and if you contact Mt Colman he will confirm that position. I agree with you that when such a recent decision has been made on paid parking the States should move on and stick with what they have decided only a short while ago but we will see. Any deputy has the right to bring something back to the house and that’s how democracy works, the house will I have no doubt have the good sense to throw it our again.
Report abuse
Dave Jones, you make an interesting point by saying that any deputy has the right to bring something back to the house, and that the house should throw it out again. Isn’t this just a gigantic waste of time though? Again?
And if paid parking wins, what’s to stop yourself trying to get it overturned in a few years?
Report abuse
Indeed Dave Jones, let’s hope it gets thrown out again. How long will it take for the anti-car brigade to get it into their heads? The car rules, and don’t forget it.
Could we not build a multi-storey car park at the North Beach, if it had another two levels that would be the whole problem sorted. Maybe one more level at the Odeon as well. And perhaps a new multi-storey down at the bathing pools, or the old brewery site. Is that too much ask???
Report abuse
Greg – yes, it is a waste of time but that is democracy. The same is true of any parliament – get the requisite number of supporters and your motion can be lodged and debated. Setting a arbitrary time limit on re-visiting issues would stifle the right of our elected representatives to raise issues.
If we think our elected representatives are wasting time, our sanction is not not elect them next time.
The other solution would be to increase the required number of supporters, but again that can cause minority issues to be kept out of debates, which is not necessarily healthy.
We need to trust the common sense of our elected representatives to not support a motion that is bound to fail unless there is good reason.
Report abuse
TL
A good post. Tony Webber is a prime example of what eventually happens to a Deputy who continually wastes not only debating time but Civil Servant’s time with a constant barrage of totally useless amendments.
There are one or two present Deputies who are sailing close to the wind in that respect
Roll on Island wide voting
Report abuse
TL, your point is good. But surely, rather than seeing yet more time wasted, a few States Members could speak with Barry Brehaut and point out that he isn’t going to succeed?
Report abuse
Greg – yes, we would hope that would happen, if that is the likely result.
Matters such as this do seem to throw the merits of island wide voting into the spotlight!
Report abuse
TL, I think you’re right but i’ve yet to see a proposed system that work.
My own feeling is that we’d have to look at 2 elections. One would weed out the crackpots and unelectables, and reduce the number of possible candidates to a manageable number. The second would then be for the actual States. But I think this system would only work if the States was reduced to a more feasible number of deputies (say 25).
There are problems with this idea. For one, would public interest decline if there was 2 rounds of voting? And are the current deputies likely to pass legislation to allow for a reduced number of deputies? I gather turkeys don’t usually vote for Christmas….
Report abuse
I would support some house rules that say that an issue once rejected by the States can not be put forward for debate again in the life of that parliament, it could not go over that period as no future parliament or the newly elected states members can be bound by the previous decisions of another States, except of course when legislation has already passed into law. I also support Island wide Elections I think they will improve the democratic accountability enormously. At present deputies only need to take into account the views of the people in the electoral district that put them in the States, a fraction of the population of Guernsey, they can of course ignore the opinions of everyone else as they do not under our present system have the power to affect their future electoral chances or the power to remove them from office. Now that cannot be right as for turkeys I think you might be right there may be some who will feel uncomfortable with an all IWE and as a result may vote for the safety of their electoral district, we will see.
Report abuse