P&R pulls back on changes to system of government

Members of the new senior committee are not in agreement on a draft package of reforms to States’ committees and the Assembly.

Instead of firm proposals, P&R intends to present the States with a wide range of potential changes and to ask deputies for further direction before finalising any recommendations.

This means there is now less chance of major reforms being introduced ahead of next year’s general election.

‘The committee is mindful of the breadth of strongly-held views on this topic. For that reason, it is at this stage supportive of a debate held under rule 3(24), which may allow for some direction to be given on a number of options that could be presented to the States,’ said Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, who is leading P&R’s review of government.

‘The committee is hopeful it can bring something to the Assembly in June or July of this year.’

A policy letter debate under rule 3(24) concludes with deputies noting rather the agreeing the content and is usually used in the first phase of a lengthy and complex piece of work.

P&R, which has set up a sub-committee to specifically address the issue, has refused to say whether it was considering proposing cabinet or ministerial government to replace the island’s traditional committee system, and declined to set out the main areas where it was likely to suggest change.

Deputy Le Tocq said it had ‘more work to do’ to finalise what it would bring before States members.

Sub-committee member Carl Meerveld said the group had not met since early autumn last year, when it was deadlocked on key issues. He feared a ‘massive lost opportunity’ to make pragmatic and incremental improvements to how the States works.

‘On the sub-committee, there was a split between those who wanted executive government and those, like me, who may be sympathetic towards some executive powers, but only with appropriate checks and balances which would come at considerable cost,’ said Deputy Meerveld.

‘The recommendations drafted were too extreme. I am not surprised that P&R has difficulty with them and can’t agree with them. I can understand why P&R would bring back the policy letter to the States without recommendations.

‘This has been mishandled by those members who want revolutionary changes, in particular executive [ministerial] government.’

In December, the Guernsey Press reported that the sub-committee was locked in a battle over reducing the number of deputies, with some members prepared to accept a reduction of three, and others pressing for 10 fewer seats in the next Assembly.

Deputy Meerveld said some members of the sub-committee had also been arguing for smaller committees.

‘They wanted three members on each committee – a case of “me and my friend plus one”. That would mean not having the same challenge as at present without the kind of scrutiny arrangements there are in Jersey, including 40-odd staff,’ said Deputy Meerveld.

He was doubtful reforms would be in place for the start of the next States term as a result of the protracted disagreements over ministerial government and the committee system.

‘They always imagine they would end up in the executive,’ he said. ‘What they never seem to think about is if a Trump-like character ended up with executive power and the damage which could be done to Guernsey in a four-year period.’

Deputy Meerveld suggested that some deputies were considering submitting requetes with their own ideas about how to reorganise the States.