Partisan meeting gives requete strong support

Of the 300 people at the Grammar School, only six indicated that they were against it in a show of hands.

The meeting was called by the constables of St Andrew’s, Forest, St Martin’s and Torteval, who have all come out against the use of Les Beaucamps as one of the sites.

The panel consisted of Deputies Andrea Dudley-Owen, Carl Meerveld and Rob Prow, signatories to the requete which the States will debate on 26 February. The independent chairman was the Dean of Guernsey, the Very Rev. Tim Barker.

Panel members’ answers to questions were mostly met with applause from the partisan audience.

Rob Gill asked if the requete was flawed as it did not suggest viable alternatives? Deputy Meerveld said it was up to Education to do its homework and signatories were not trying to redesign education on the hoof.

Rosie Henderson wanted to know what the panel’s preferred options were.

Deputy Dudley-Owen said she was open-minded at this stage but wanted input from professionals and experts with details of facts and research.

Sarah Bamford asked if it was realistic to expect Education to do this work in the three months to the general election?

Deputy Meerveld said he hoped the committee had already done the work but had just not presented it.

Liz Adams said the Grammar School worked well and many wanted to keep it. Could candidates not be asked to answer certain questions as part of the election process?

From the floor, States’ Assembly and Constitution Committee president Deputy Neil Inder said it would not be possible to amend the Reform Law at this stage, put questions in, and effectively turn it into a referendum.

Teacher Emily Tostevin said the involvement of students in the process to date had been inadequate.

Deputy Prow said a clear message had come from a meeting between States members and teachers that there had been a lack of engagement.

Requete opponent Karl Taylor said it was stretching it a bit to get children involved. Two members of the panel – Deputies Dudley-Owen and Meerveld – were on the last Education committee so they must have been aware of what proposals were suitable.

‘What do you realistically think a delay would achieve given there are so many variables?’ he said.

Deputy Meerveld said a delay would be regrettable but it depended on what the new States would want to consider and bring in to the scope.

Mike Page asked the panel if it thought States members had demonstrated fiscal responsibility?

Deputy Prow said he did not think it had. Members would have to look and see if the business plan represented value for money.

In response to a question from a school teacher who did not wish to be named, Deputy Meerveld said States members who had supported the proposal had been sold a concept that had not been delivered.

He hoped the requete would not be met with spoiler amendments that would divert it or divide. Members who ignored it would pay the price at the general election which would be a referendum anyway.

. Education deputies were not invited to attend Thursday's meeting.