Consensus or cabinet? We'll take whatever
FORGET the consensus versus executive debate – it is about getting a system that works. That must be the message as some deputies get bogged down in an almost religious argument about why a consensus system is the one for the island.
FORGET the consensus versus executive debate – it is about getting a system that works. That must be the message as some deputies get bogged down in an almost religious argument about why a consensus system is the one for the island.
But as Public Accounts Committee non-political member Advocate Mark Helyar implied at last week's IoD winter seminar (in markedly strong language), that really is missing the point.
And it was telling that nobody managed to explain to Advocate Peter Harwood what people really meant by consensus government, something he has twice asked for.
Given that the States fails to meet any of the six criteria of good governance identified by the Wales Audit Office and fails to ensure taxpayers get value for money, it is inevitable that the machinery of government is in the spotlight.
But it must not simply come down to the label you attach to it. Time has come to take the blinkers off.
So what are the options available?
You can go back to 2000 and find that Advocate Harwood and his team initially outlined three different models for change.
Add to that working within the status quo and then the latest stab at devising a system by former deputy chief minister Stuart Falla.
Already the debate has begun and much of the groundwork has been laid, at least among the public.
Advocate Harwood's starting point is a system that achieves cohesion, cooperation and collective responsibility.
There is precious little of the last 'c' under the current arrangements.
For Mr Falla, it was about achieving a system that attracted the best talent available, that made it clear before the election what direction of change you were voting for, and left room for clear leaders.
Both were members of the team that previously reviewed the system.
When it released its initial report in November 2000, there were no recommendations – that was not in its mandate – just options for change.
They were:
* A Ministerial Council – with a chief minister and an Executive Council of twelve members, to be chosen by the chief minister. The Government would be run on a departmental system.
* A Coordinating Executive Council – with its members nominated by the States and a leader selected by the members of that council. Each member of the council would head a department. The Government would be run on a departmental basis.
* President's Council with Committees – with certain core members of the council selected by the president and other members selected by the States. All council members would be presidents of individual committees. The Government would be run on a committee basis.
When that report was released, the front-page headline of the Guernsey Press asked: 'Where is the island's political leadership?'
It is a question that remains unanswered in many people's minds.
Mr Falla's plan is one that he admits was unlikely to be attractive to the current States incumbents.
Before the election, someone who wanted to stand for chief minister would find two running mates who held a similar vision.
They would outline that to the electorate – it would be like a manifesto against which they could be held accountable at a later date.
Once elected, that team would be joined by two others to form a five-strong chief minister's department, which would have a wide policy-making remit to make their vision a reality.
The departments would become operational.
They would all be kept in check by a strong scrutiny system that would hold the ultimate trump card – its ultimate power being to recommend the dissolution of the States.
All those options would be unpalatable for many.
But it is difficult to convince current deputies to stretch their thinking about addressing the deficiencies identified by the Wales Audit Office beyond the current model.
But even if they could, they would have to give ground so that decisions were being made at the right level and more authority was delegated – otherwise it simply wouldn't work.
There have been identifiable steps in addressing the problems the Harwood team found, but it has been a shuffle forwards rather than a great stride.
Whether the States can tick all the boxes perhaps boils down to one simple question.
Will deputies ever trust their colleagues to make decisions for them?
