'Scrutiny' exists in name only
PUBLICATION of the House of Commons Justice Committee's report on the Crown Dependencies has generally been beneficial for the island's autonomy but one area which actually seeks to extend it needs to be treated with caution.
PUBLICATION of the House of Commons Justice Committee's report on the Crown Dependencies has generally been beneficial for the island's autonomy but one area which actually seeks to extend it needs to be treated with caution.
Highlighting the lack of resources available within the UK's Ministry of Justice devoted to these islands, the committee suggests reducing the level of external scrutiny and instead leaving domestic legislation to the judgement of the Law Officers.
Many will be uncomfortable with that. Not because there is any implicit criticism of St James' Chambers but simply because there is no effective local scrutiny of what they do.
Perhaps uniquely, the Law Officers, who are increasingly distant from the world of private practice, conceive the need for legislation, draft it, write the Billet d'Etat 'selling' it to the States, interpret the law when approved and then prosecute islanders who fall foul of its provisions.
Such a concentration of power and influence, no matter how scrupulously exercised, demands critical observation - if only to reassure islanders that all is well.
In practice, however, that does not happen. Consultation on significant pieces of draft legislation is frequently inadequate or even non-existent.
The States itself can be relied on to nod through whatever is put in front of it and has no access in debate to any independent legal view on the adequacy or need for the legislation and so there is no 'real world' test applied to legislation coming from civil service draftsmen and lawyers.
There is a supposed check on this: the Legislation Select Committee. In reality, however, its headline role is to ensure that what the States believes it has approved is translated into a projet de loi or ordinance.
It has no mandate to challenge, to modify or to question - just to proof read. And as most of its six members (there is just one advocate, who cannot vote) would agree, they are not qualified meaningfully to scrutinise legislation.
It is a pure rubber-stamp operation and members of the Guernsey Bar and the institutions affected by what is authorised are increasingly concerned by what is happening.
If Guernsey is to get more freedom it needs more self-criticism - and that is sadly lacking.
