Rushed requete debate ‘could leave people feeling trampled’
BRINGING the debate on the future of education forward by three weeks has angered and disappointed several States members.
A last-minute amendment to the next meeting’s agenda by Policy & Resources saw the move approved by 22 votes to 15 with two abstentions.
The schedule is governed by different rules to debates on policy letters, so no debate was allowed.
In the wake of the decision, some members took to Twitter to vent their reaction to this move.
Perhaps the most annoyed was Emilie McSwiggan: ‘It’s March 2016 all over again,’ she tweeted, referring to the decision to end the 11-Plus which came as the result of an amendment.
‘Well intended and poorly judged.
‘I’m so, so angry I can barely find the words.’
She did find words, however, and went on to say that the requete did not offer teachers what they wanted, which was not ‘pause and reflect’ but ‘back to the drawing board’.
‘There is no plan, and no safety net for the children whose educational futures are up in the air while the politics plays out.’
She said that the teachers’ concerns were genuine and needed to be heard and possibly addressed.
‘P&R have just cut short the time that ordinary deputies – those of us not on ESC, or involved in the requete – have to do that. And for what?
‘P&R can’t stop the years of uncertainty that will follow if the requete passes.
‘But what if it falls? People will feel trampled on by political process, again, because we haven’t taken the time to listen & work together to try and make things better. Because there is no time.’
She vowed to do everything she could in the next two weeks ‘to try and find a constructive way through this debate’.
Deputy Barry Brehaut later tweeted that he was disappointed, too: ‘Disappointing from a governance perspective,’ he wrote.
‘ESC had very little time to consider the implications, shortened time frames etc. ESC were meeting with requerants, staff were meeting with ESC, P&R didn’t need to “grab the wheel”.’
An effort to see a positive side was made by Deputy Shane Langlois: ‘The juxtaposition of two ‘‘full speed in reverse’’ requetes next States meeting, one signed by two members of P&R and the other supported by one, possibly two, of them won’t add weight to the case for more centralisation of power.’
Some members had expressed concern that members of DPA might not be able to vote on the issue due to it not having considered the planning application.
‘Personally, I think all should be allowed to vote,’ tweeted Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez. ‘Planning decisions are made on planning considerations alone; that objective process should not prevent them from taking part in important debates.’
She also tweeted that the change to the requete’s meeting date meant the deadline for amendments to it had been brought forward to this Tuesday, but on the States website the deadline for amendments is given as 18 February for the meeting on 26 February.
