Committee versus cabinet

THE panel reviewing Guernsey's machinery of government says the States must decide between returning to the island's traditional committee system or adopting a full 'bells and whistles' ministerial one.

It claims the current half-way house is neither fish nor fowl and is almost impossible to operate effectively. They've even taken a Joey trip to Jersey to learn how our flashier cousins' ministerial system works.

The panel has got it half right.

They're correct that the present sorry compromise is in no one's interest.

• Committee presidents called ministers even though they’re no such thing.

• Departmental boards in a constant state of tension with the Policy Council, each blaming the other for government shortcomings.

• The top stratum of the civil service all too often stepping in to fill that power vacuum.

Where's the cohesion, the accountability or the leadership? The whole set-up is a feeble attempt to please everybody and instead pleases few – and those who are happy probably don't really understand what's going on. It needs to change.

Where the panel is deluded is in thinking they can get any lessons on how to operate full-blown ministerial/cabinet government from the States of Jersey. They, too, went for a limp-wristed compromise. A decade ago, both islands carried out governmental reforms at about the same time. Guernsey decisively rejected ministerial government and settled for slimming down its committee system, changing a few names and introducing a smidgen of central control by setting up a dysfunctional body called the Policy Council.

Jersey's reforms weren't much more decisive. They went halfway towards cabinet government by scrapping committees in favour of individual ministers, but with no collective responsibility or agreed policy programme. Each minister is still elected on an individual manifesto, from which it would be quite impossible to thrash out a 'coalition agreement'. So it's hardly a ministerial system as the rest of the world understands it.

Let me make my own preference clear.

Despite its obvious drawbacks, I think our small community is probably best served by keeping a committee system modified to meet today's complex challenges, with measures to stop maverick departments ignoring States resolutions. Under this system, the main 'central control' would simply be capped departmental budgets.

Because the States' policy aims are so closely wrapped up with the finances required to achieve them, I would even suggest a reinvented Advisory and Finance Committee. Creating a separate T&R and Policy Council 10 years ago was a major step backwards. If the States elect members of these two bodies, who have very divergent visions and priorities, it's very destructive to the political process. Policy and resources are two sides of the same coin and should be overseen by the same body.

Membership of the 'new A&F' could still be the chairs of all the other departments, just like today's Policy Council. There would be two big differences. Firstly, its chairman would be the clear leader of the States instead of bizarrely having a chief minister who really doesn't have much inherent power. Holding the purse strings would change that. Secondly, assuming the States does rationalise its departmental structure – as it must – the committee will be smaller and more focused.

That said, I accept that switching to a cabinet system instead could have some advantages.

It could be far more effective, productive and accountable, but to really deliver, it needs to go the whole hog.

It requires party politics, with each party setting out a clear manifesto that they would be expected to implement if they gained power. There would also be an 'opposition' for the first time. That would be far more accountable than today's fudge, where everybody blames everybody else. The cabinet, not the whole States, would be in control and therefore would be held responsible.

The chief minister would need the power to hire and fire ministers, who would be bound by collective responsibility. How can he/she provide clear leadership if ministers are foisted on him/her? All other deputies would be 'reduced' to a role of scrutiny and holding the executive to account.

To me, this is a nightmare scenario, but I must admit it does have some advantages.

By contrast, the Jersey fudge holds few lessons for Guernsey.

In effect, it is a choice whether to sacrifice an element of democracy in order to achieve accountability. Most of the deputies we elected would be almost powerless, but those who did gain executive power would no longer have anywhere to hide.