Yvonne Burford

I’m delighted to be standing for election, driven by a love our island. I want Guernsey to be a place where our young people know they can have a future – a place with affordable housing, efficient and effective public services and healthcare, a cherished natural environment, and an education system that inspires, all built on a sustainable and thriving economy. Our community embraces different views but still pulls together, and the next Assembly must reflect that spirit by deputies working with each other, free from division and self-interest, if we are to realise these ambitions. With a broad background in economic, environmental, social, and political matters, I’m not a single-issue candidate. I’m open-minded, and always ready to listen to fresh ideas and compelling evidence from our community and my colleagues, as even with 9 years in the States, I do not pretend to have all the answers. My record shows that I approach challenges with energy, a can-do mindset, and a commitment to getting things done. If my manifesto resonates with you, I’d be deeply grateful for one of your 38 votes. Together, let’s shape a Guernsey for all that we are proud to call home!

A thriving economy is vital. Making efficiencies and savings in our public sector should be a continual process, including listening to frontline staff – they often know best where savings and improvements can be made. Even with savings, we’ll still need to raise money for healthcare, infrastructure investment, and rebuilding our rainy-day fund, which are the three things driving the deficit. My voting record shows that I always support those who are less well-off. There’ll be lots of tax ideas at this election, some better thought through than others, but my promise to you is simple: I’ll only back fair tax changes that protect or improve things for low and middle earners, who are already under pressure. Any system must have safeguards against future increases for these families, and the burden can’t just fall on individuals. We need to make sure any changes don’t hurt Guernsey’s competitiveness, and we must look at working with Jersey on mutually beneficial changes to corporate tax.

The Scrutiny review I led into the States’ IT contract with Agilisys laid bare real problems with how big projects are managed. Add to that, the rising cost of the hospital modernisation and Alderney runway issues, and it’s clear we need to manage large capital projects much better. If elected, I’d like to work on Policy & Resources to make sure we have the right resources and skills in place. We can’t keep wasting money by doing the same work twice. Growing up here, with parents who lived through the war, I learned the value of living within your means and not being wasteful – lessons I’d take into the States. I would, however, agree to borrowing for projects that generate income and support the economy, such as building affordable homes for rent or partial ownership, where the rental income will cover the borrowing costs.

Health and Social Care makes up nearly 40% of total States spending, so it’s vital to invest effectively in preventing ill health, both physical and mental, so that we can avoid costs becoming simply unaffordable and ensure we can offer the best range of services to islanders. The Health Improvement Commission does great work in helping keep the community healthy and further funding will help expand the services on offer.

We must work to create personal resilience in our community which sometimes seems to be eroded by the culture and pressures of modern-day life, leading to increasing demands on healthcare and decreased workforce participation. This could potentially be done through interventions in schools, social prescribing and the Health Improvement Commission. I would support a ban on mobile phones in schools. Long term care funding needs to be made sustainable, but I do not support people having to sell their home to fund their care.

As President of the Scrutiny Management Committee form 2020-2025, I led on the review of the Agilisys contract with Guernsey. The review was a challenging piece of work, examining a £200m contract which had been signed in 2019. Recommendations were made by the Scrutiny to the Policy and Resources Committee who accepted them and they are contributing to significant improvements in the oversight of the contract as well as how services are delivered to islanders.

The Arts, Culture and Sport are essential parts of island life, adding to its vibrancy and sense of community. Guernsey culture and history is an integral part of who we are. As a year-round swimmer I’m a strong advocate for our wonderful Victorian Bathing Pools. Sport is good for the body and soul. It plays an indispensable part in keeping health costs down, and in the social fabric of the island, and it must be facilitated by the States. As a potter in my spare time, I understand the importance of the arts. A separate committee in the States for Art, Culture and Sport would help to give these important parts of island life the prominence and attention they deserve.

Guernsey’s charities and volunteers are the heartbeat of our island, tirelessly and selflessly supporting everything from youth programmes to elderly care, as well as our amazing environment. They strengthen our community and fill vital gaps with practical help, solutions and compassion. The States has an important role to play in supporting them and the work they do, particularly with multi-year contracts that allow charities to plan ahead.

I support the vision of the Youth Commission of “Empowering youth and shaping futures, enabling young people to be inspired and prepared for the future they dream of…’ Children and young people need to be fully considered in all that the States does. Growing up in the early twenty-first century provides amazing new opportunities but also new challenges for young people and it is vital that the downsides of the internet age which can lead to cyber bullying and mental health issues are mitigated.

Introduction
As Guernsey’s election approaches, public frustration with the States’ performance over the past four and a half years is evident. Whilst the ‘business as usual’ part of delivering for the island has largely run on as normal, some islanders understandably feel let down by lack of progress, especially on issues such as housing, education and healthcare. It’s perhaps unsurprising therefore that certain commentators are blaming the system – aka ‘the machinery of government’ – as the reason the States doesn’t appear to be delivering. This has resulted in a scattering of calls for a
wholesale structural change by implementing executive government. In such a system individual ministers would have power to decide policy. Or at least, that is how I interpret these calls – they have been thin on detail, save that power would be concentrated in fewer hands – presumably hands that agree with the proponents of
change. Others, however, have argued that we stand to lose more than we would gain by moving away from the consensus system. Nevertheless, as W Edwards
Deming, says: ‘Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are getting’, and its undeniable that a good number in our community are not happy with what we are getting. Debates about governance structures focus on committees vs. ministers, while the people in the system are a critical but overlooked factor.
The people in the system
The best system in the world will fail if the people in it are not up to the task, Equally the worst system won’t deliver effectively even with the very best people. The people
in the system are the deputies (and the civil service, but space does not permit a discussion of that here). They arrive in the system via an election. Asking voters to select up to 38 candidates from a field of around 100 creates a paradox of choice. A Scrutiny survey conducted by Island Global Research on the last Island Wide election asked people what sources they had used when assessing candidates and, by a country mile, the top one was the manifesto booklet. 87% of voters used it and 81% said it was the most useful resource. Next was the States election website, with
only half that number finding it useful. Less popular still were candidates’ own websites and social media, which a mere 13% of respondents found to be of use.
These responses are not surprising. Trawling through scores of separate websites is an onerous task but flicking through the manifesto booklet while having a coffee, or over a pizza with friends is altogether quicker and easier. It’s clear that many of the electorate largely or entirely rely on the booklet to make their choices, perhaps only speaking directly to two or three candidates and this is entirely understandable.As one panellist in a Scrutiny public hearing on Island Wide Voting said: “I endeavoured to go to all the opportunities where I could meet candidates and what I found a few times was that the person I thought would make a great deputy on paper, when I got to talk to them I realised ‘oh my goodness, I really don’t want this person at all.’” And this isn’t surprising. No employer would hire an applicant for an
important role (in this case literally running the island) purely on the strength of a two- or four-page resume. They’ll certainly want to meet the person before committing. But
we’re hiring 38 people to run the island almost entirely on the basis of a very short manifesto that might have been written entirely by AI.
The change to Island Wide voting was driven by the laudable and understandable desire to be able to vote for any candidate. However, reforming this system could
contribute to much better scrutiny of candidates. Systems exist that would still allow people to vote for any candidate but with a much smaller pool of candidates to assess at any one time.
Executive or Consensus?
While some argue that scrapping Guernsey’s consensus model for an executive system would solve many of our problems, the reality is more complex. Supporters of an executive model argue that concentrating power in a cabinet-style government would clarify accountability and speed up decision-making. But such a shift is not without risk. It overlooks the experience of executive systems elsewhere. Jersey, with its quasi-executive system, managed to spend £100m and an inordinate amount of time not building a hospital, and the UK did similar but on a larger scale with HS2. But even conceding that, for the most part, decision making could be quicker, we also need to be assured that decision making would be better. Quick but
wrong decisions are more costly in the long run. Constitutional reviews must involve public consultations and legislative changes. These take resources away from day-to-day governing and delivery of housing, healthcare, and cost-of-living solutions, at both political and administrative levels. Inevitably, changing the system would take years to implement. Once work begins it will quickly be realised that even its proponents all have different ideas about what kind of executive government they want. And when a decision is arrived at, the work is only beginning. Laws need to be rewritten, roles redefined, deputies and civil servants retrained and reorganised. And even if one is prepared to invest all that time and bear the expense, new systems invariably spawn teething troubles in their implementation. Far better in my view to improve the existing system where deputies can collaborate across committees to develop policy, and which lends itself to inclusivity of thought and helps resists groupthink. Its strength lies in ensuring diverse voices shape decisions—a critical feature for a small island community where personal connections and local knowledge matter deeply. However, recent years have exposed its weaknesses with debates that loop endlessly, blurred accountability, and a growing disconnect between deputies and the public they serve, the latter being exacerbated by the electoral system.

Modifying the current system
Perhaps therefore, the pragmatic way forward lies in targeted reforms of the existing machinery, as well as consideration of the challenges presented by Guernsey’s
unique electoral system, rather than in a radical structural upheaval of the machinery itself. The consensus model, for all its flaws, ensures all deputies have a voice. An executive system risks sidelining challenge, centralizing power in a few hands, and eroding the collaborative culture that defines Guernsey’s political identity. So what could be done to improve the current system? Going back to the people in
the system, new deputies who enter office full of enthusiasm but perhaps unused to self-directed working can struggle to balance constituency work, committee duties, and reviewing policy letters in detail. The level of support and information provided to new deputies (and returning ones – there’s always something new to learn) has
improved over recent political terms but there is still much more that could be done. Attendance at these induction sessions is not mandatory, but at the very least a
record of attendance should be made public. Throughout the term, presentations are scheduled by Committees on their forthcoming policy letters. Attendance by deputies
at these presentations varies hugely although, interestingly, the rate of attendance by the female members is generally around twice that of their male colleagues, although
I have never quite understood why. The presentations are a valuable resource, enabling deputies to ask questions ahead of the debate thus avoiding going down rabbit holes in the Assembly.
And what of the Assembly itself? In that arena deputies don’t always cover themselves in glory. Whilst a hope for self-restraint and relevance is ever-present, in
practice this doesn’t always happen. There is a detailed rule book covering all aspects of procedure, and with due deference to the role of the presiding officer who
has the unenviable task of balancing administering the rules whilst not stifling the democratic right of members to speak, I for one would like to see rules enforced more robustly, particularly on spurious points of order, tedious repetition and (lack of) mutual respectfulness amongst a whole host of other issues.
I would also like to see live video streaming of States debates which would not only enhance openness and transparency by giving a visual window to the world on
Deputies’ deliberations, but which might also encourage States members overall to give more thought to their interventions and contributions. Issuing an accessible
summary of each States Meeting, including attendance records would further contribute to public understanding of what is being achieved by the States.

Surprisingly, deputies seating is another issue. Doubtless, this will seem a very minor
point, but perhaps it’s more important that it first appears. Let me explain. Before 2020, deputies sat in an allocated seat. There was no choice in the matter. This term, however, it was decided that the two parties would sit facing each other across the Greffier’s desk, in a Westminster-style set up where the Government and the opposition are separated by a distance said to be ‘two swords’ lengths and one inch’.
So the stage was set for confrontation from the outset. The remaining non-party members were free to sit anywhere, changing their seats from day to day if they so
wished. In the beginning this led to some towel-on-the-sunlounger antics, as deputies sought to reserve a seat, but soon settled down largely into members sitting with like-minded people. What was lost was being obliged to sit next to someone you might not agree with, but over time establishing a rapport, possibly even a friendship
and being open to understanding a different point of view. I believe that irrespective of any parties, seating next term should be allocated rather than free. It could subsequently be reallocated each year or halfway through the term. This measure alone has significant potential to get deputies with different perspectives working together, a lack of which was one of the main downfalls this term.

Taken individually all these points might seem small, irrelevant even. Taken together, I believe they have the potential to significantly improve the way the people in the
system work, for the benefit of the community and the island. So, rather than gambling on a years-long structural transition, Guernsey could achieve meaningful progress by refining the status quo by reviewing the electoral
system to enable voters to better scrutinise candidates, and equipping and resourcing deputies to operate effectively together. Transparency can be increased by summarising meetings in an accessible format, live-streaming States Meetings and publishing attendance figures for training and presentations.

Let’s start producing results now—not after a decade of structural experiments. In the end, I believe that most people don’t care what the system is, they just want the people they have elected to deliver for them.