Wanted, chief minister - no experience required

SO, THE tinkermen are at it again. The States Assembly and Constitution Committee is recommending a series of changes to the rules of procedure, another tidying-up episode, but one with some stings in the tail.

Back in April 2006 the then States accepted a rule change which meant anyone who wanted to be chief minister had to have prior experience - four years in the preceding eight.

To some it was a move with hidden motives, blocking a prospective candidate who would have stood if there was a shot at the top spot.

At the time the committee summed its reasoning up as this: 'It is essential that the chief minister should have at least a full term's previous experience of working within Guernsey's system of government in order to discharge effectively the responsibilities of that office.'

Fast forward five years and the House Committee had morphed into Sacc and the idea of previous experience has apparently gone out the window.

The committee will ask members to scrap the rule because - well, it does not exactly spell out much in the way of reasoning.

'The committee, by a majority, believes that members of the States should be free to choose the person to hold any particular office and should not be constrained by a requirement to select someone with at least four years' service in the past eight years,' the report said.

So that is that. No evidence, discussion of the pros or cons, nothing.

The role of chief minister has been different things to different people. Laurie Morgan, Mike Torode and Lyndon Trott have all interpreted the job in different ways, the latter being the most outward looking of the three.

Does it matter that the most difficult job in local politics could be won by a novice?

I suspect it would be a very, very steep learning curve.

A strong chief minister, both domestically and internationally, would probably not come from a fresh-faced political novice.

They would have to navigate their way through government by consensus and how to build that, as well as unravel the intricacies of a loose and evolving relationship with the UK.

Of course, even a novice would have to win through an election, but never underestimate the ability of a new States - the last election delivered 19 new members - to throw up curve balls.

Elsewhere, Sacc's mopping up exercise has picked up on some lessons from this term.

One has been the ability of the minority to scupper debate - you could almost hear democracy let out a scream every time it happened.

Rule 13(6) has done for a couple of important amendments in the past couple of years.

As it is currently written, when an amendment is ruled to go further than the propositions, then if one-third of members do not want it debated it is thrown out.

It was designed to stop uninformed decisions being taken.

'However, the committee believes that it is inconsistent with democratic principles for a mechanism to exist whereby one-third of members can block debate on a matter which the majority, and indeed up to two-thirds, of members wish to debate,' its report said.

If the States accepts, it will take a majority decision to block a debate, which at the very least seems to level the playing field - especially as other rules have been put in place in attempts to ensure things such as financial consequences of amendments are spelled out.

The proposer of the amendment would also be given the chance to speak before a vote is taken on whether it should be debated - at the moment, they do not get a chance.

Elsewhere the committee wants to alter the order in which items are taken, which will matter to few, and extend the code of conduct to apply to people who have left the States, which will matter to more.

Sacc changed the code not long ago by adding that members would be in breach if they released minutes or papers from their department or committee without permission - there is no public interest defence written in, as there is to other actions.

Now it wants to extend the code's reach even further - no matter that there are already civil and criminal law restrictions. If members agree, ex deputies could be cautioned or reprimanded for breaching the code, which I guess they would probably shrug off as a pretty toothless inconvenience if it came down to it.