Consensus government needs committed structural change

GUERNSEY'S system of government has been under increasing scrutiny as changes first made in 2004 have bedded in.

And with this increased scrutiny there has been a growing realisation even among the most ardent supporters of consensus government that structural change is needed.

One experienced deputy recently said that discontent with the committee system grows as each States gets more experienced, only for nothing to happen as the General Election brings in new members who are unsure about the need for reform.

If a requete now being circulated among States members is successful, the next Assembly will be forced into action.

The last machinery

of government review began in 1998 when the States established what was to become known as the Harwood panel.

Members baulked at the reforms proposed by the panel to move to an executive system, and instead streamlined the numbers of committees and deputies while retaining the consensus model.

When asked to debate how to introduce accountability into this system the States was embarrassingly silent a few months ago.

Already under way is a review of the scrutiny function and the strait-jacketed investigation by the joint-committees into how to introduce the principles of good governance within the current model.

'It would be expedient in the next term of the States to examine without constraint whether there are options for

reform of the structure and functions of the legislature and the government in Guernsey which might enable the progress made already in respect of good governance to be advanced further,' the draft requete states.

It argues that fundamental changes to the scrutiny function of the States cannot be pursued in isolation.

'During this term there has been a re-emergence of debate about the case for re-examining, inter alia, the number and mandates of States departments and committees, the number of members sitting on department boards and committees, the wisdom of permitting members to hold seats on department boards and scrutiny committees at the same time, the role and authority of the chief minister and ministers, the organisation of the States' corporate policy planning process and the relationship between the States of Deliberation as legislature and the States of Deliberation as government.'

With the amount of time it takes to introduce any reform there is a danger of any changes not being implemented until beyond 2020, the requete suggests.

Unlike the Harwood report, this review would be done by a committee with political representation in the ascendancy.

There would be two completely independent people and five politicians – the chief minister would chair it.

'Requiring it to consist solely of persons independent of the States would represent a failure to recognize that the structure and functions of the legislature and the government are inherently political matters and could well result, arguably as on the last occasion that such a review was undertaken, in the presentation of a report which from the outset is without political buy-in and therefore ultimately less likely to be considered satisfactory by the States of Deliberation,' the requete states.

'Combining political members and independent specialists in a Special States Committee overcomes such disadvantages.'

No one would be paid, but the costs are still likely to be more than £225,000 with the need for a senior member of staff and administrative support.

The committee would report in two stages.

In 2013 with a broad overview and potential changes needed, and then in 2014 'with firm recommendations for reform of the structure and functions of the legislature and the government in Guernsey which it considers necessary to provide for the highest possible standards of good governance.'

There would be widespread consultation.

Back in 2002, John Roper submitted a minority report which backed an executive system.

He said then that the fundamental issue was the need to establish a distinction between the executive and the legislature.

'The most curious feature of the island's system of government at present is that there is no such distinction: every States Member is at the same time a member of the legislature and a member of the executive. The main disadvantage of this curious fact is that there is lacking any real element of accountability in the system. An executive should be accountable to the legislature, but when the legislature is the executive and the executive is the legislature, what possibility can there be of any such accountability? Accountability in plain English means that if the performance of some part of the executive is found seriously wanting, that part can be dismissed. But that means ceasing to be a member of the executive and remaining only a member of the legislature and in our system that does not happen and by definition cannot happen.'

That argument rings as true today, and was something picked up on by the Wales Audit Office.

There is another fundamental problem that is linked in to the problems with accountability – that is the lack of leadership.

The chief minister and ministers have to rely on force of personality more than anything else, it is a system based on being lucky enough to get the right characters in place at the beginning of each term.

A diverse range of viewpoints exist on what if any reforms are needed.

But there is a growing sense that a review needs to begin early in the life of the new States.

That the person leading the charge, Deputy Matt Fallaize, was once fervently committed to the current model of government only serves to give it added impetus.