Ministerial titles might get the Sacc this week

WILL this week see the great ministerial government clash? Well, probably not. It will more likely to be a sideshow along the way, an early league match when the championship will not be decided, but you should be able to see some signs of form and the sides can lay down a marker.

The States Assembly and Constitution Committee's proposal to scrap the title of chief minister and minister certainly has some hidden undertones.

Perhaps not as far as an underhand way to set consensus government in granite, but you can expect the gauntlet to be thrown down by the committee's chairman Ivan Rihoy along the lines of 'if you support ministerial government, keep the titles, if not, they need to be changed...'

Most will probably try to sidestep making the issue quite so black and white, but there is an element of hypocrisy in the whole thing.

Ministers like the title because it is easily recognised on the international stage. Just imagine how many doors would be opened to some nonentity called president of the Policy Council rather than chief minister.

But ministers then also have to go on and explain that they do not have the power to make executive decisions or promise anything because they are in essence the chairman and chairwoman of a committee.

Some suggest that Deputy John Gollop is a pawn in the Policy Council's game.

He has decided to attempt to sursis the whole report, which covers a host of changes to the rules of procedure, so that the committee can get together with the ministers and discuss the issue further.

Deputy Gollop wants another Harwood-style system of government review, so we know which mast his colours are nailed to.

Members of Sacc signed a letter reiterating support for Guernsey's consensus system of government, so we also know where they sit.

But with Treasury minister Charles Parkinson and Chief Minister Lyndon Trott effectively saying in recent months that Guernsey's consensus style of government was on trial, it could soon be time to look again at the system of and put the debate to rest.

The last time the States debated the title issue was in April 2006.

Only eight members voted for an amendment to adopt the president title placed by the former Health and Social Services minister, Peter Roffey.

As with last time, expect lots of references to history, dictionary definitions and republics.

Deputy Rihoy will probably recall the time he was in Gibraltar when someone, on seeing Deputy Hunter Adam was the Health and Social Services minister, said they did not realise Guernsey had introduced ministerial government.

'If people want to keep this minister title it's a step towards ministerial government, isn't it?' said Deputy Rihoy.

'Do you want that?

But Sacc faces an uphill battle to get the titles changed.

'It's an issue that needs to be debated, it's been talked about, it needs to be discussed to find out where we are.'

Also among proposed changes to the Rules of Procedure, the committee is asking the States to back a ban on mobile phones being used in the chamber during debate.

The chief minister is famed for the use of his BlackBerry, but then Deputy Rihoy uses his as well so expect some fun and games on that.

It is one that either makes sense for those who believe using them means you are not paying attention, or is arcane to those that think having the correct information at your fingertips during debate can only help.

Some of the changes proposed reflect the experience of this term.

Giving the Code of Conduct Panel the chance to recommend stripping a deputy of a position they hold was a direct consequence of the debate that followed Deputy Flouquet's golliwog 'joke'.

Some argued because the panel had not recommended he lost his Public Services role, they should not vote for that to happen.

But it was never in the panel's power to do so.

Clarifying that the panel cannot mediate between deputies results from the Deputy Trott clash with Deputy Barry Brehaut, which never got as far as a hearing because of the chairman Chris Day's intervention and a signed apology.

The States has a lot on its agenda this week, multi-million pound decisions – waste, pensions, kerbside recycling, a domestic abuse strategy.

In comparison Sacc's proposals are largely and rightly overshadowed. But do not be fooled into thinking they will be a dead rubber because of that.

Just light the consensus argument touch paper and anything can happen – despite the consequences.