A need to value the right to speak

Modern-day scholars of Guernsey politics may equally pose the same question. The guillotine motion was introduced some years ago but has never been as popular as it is today. Which leads to two considerations – does this Assembly have any appetite for debate, and then, by extension, is there any value to that debate in the first place?

Some new members of the States arrived post-election seemingly with little appetite for debate. Rather than being a conduit for action, the Assembly was slowing down their drive to ‘get things done’.

And so there has been at least a mistrust, and at times, obvious disdain for debate. Which leads one to rather question the point of it all, which in turn makes the use of the guillotine all the more attractive.

But the other achievement this States will remain known for is an ability to string out some thin gruel of a Billet into a meeting of interminable length, until, of course, it reaches 5.15pm, particularly on a Friday, when suddenly debate no longer matters again and speed and brevity become the watchwords.

Last week we saw new ground broken with a (successful) bid to curtail general debate on GP11 before a word was spoken. Whether or not this was a retaliation for the presiding officer refusing to allow debate to continue the night before, or that the result of the debate was pre-ordained (it was), it was a poor move, bringing government into (further) disrepute.

But the lack of respect for debate, and apparent lack of value given to it, need addressing. That is best done by deputies exercising their own, improved, discipline in the Chamber.