Tension rises in States as election draws closer
THE States currently is showing some signs of ripping itself slowly apart.
THE States currently is showing some signs of ripping itself slowly apart.
As the heavy workload and big decisions add pressure, and the tension of the general election looms, everyone is getting increasingly tetchy.
And with that in mind, the last debate of this Assembly's term is in line to provide a spectacle as some members go demob happy and others try to pander to their electorate, knowing that putting a foot wrong now is more of a vote-loser than ever.
Four days have been put aside for 21 items to be debated – at least two of these have massive fault lines through them.
Much has already been made of the split over Social Security's benefits plans, which the Policy Council said should not be debated at this time.
Some have described it as dead on arrival.
Now comes the 'super-committees' report on improving governance in the States – a joint report by the Public Accounts, Scrutiny and States Assembly and Constitution committees.
Never a particularly sexy subject, it is one nevertheless that would ensure the current blurred lines, confusion and lack of accountability were overcome.
Even the most ardent of politicos may switch off when early in a report it comes up with such beautiful dualities as 'in Guernsey, in effect the legislature is the government and the government is the legislature'.
But there is much sense spoken in the report of clearing up the fog that is Guernsey's consensus model of government that has grown since reforms in 2004.
Therein lies the problem though, because this report is all about improving the consensus model without the answer to whether that is the best system in the first place.
Much as with Social Security, timing is everything.
In the case of the governance report, it could be undone on two fronts.
A requete, led by Deputy Matt Fallaize, who also headed up the governance report, is likely to succeed and so launch a machinery of government review.
And the Policy Council seems rightly concerned that issues including corporate tax reform, overcoming the global economic crisis and pressing on with its population management programme are more important.
In its letter of comment the council, 'while recognising the amount of work that has gone into this report and acknowledging that it contains a number of recommendations that could in time lead to improved governance', believes it is premature for the States to debate and vote on it.
It believes the requete, which already has 22 signatures, 'might well receive majority support'.
Work is also already under way to review the scrutiny function of the States.
As the Policy Council alludes to, any significant changes in the structure of government, something both investigations should lead to, could make the
recommendations of the committee redundant.
The committee argues that this is not the case. It states the report's recommendations would in many cases improve governance during the next term – the impact of any changes from the requete would not be until post-2016.
'While all the recommendations in this report are strictly compatible with the present system of government, many of them would be equally applicable to other systems of government and therefore they would not become redundant should the States at some point determine to make changes to the island's system of government.'
It also emphasises that the reforms in its report would be approved only in principle and then incorporated into an implementation plan for another debate, which could be flexible enough to take account of the other factors.
It all just has a horrid sense of duplication and time-wasting.
Given the earlier insistence by the States that the committees' investigations be confined to the consensus model, it raises a smile that they include a chart comparing that model with cabinet government which highlights devastatingly well the problems the current system introduces.
'Diffuse lines of accountability' for government by committees and consensus compares with 'clear lines of accountability'.
'A degree of internal challenge and scrutiny' with 'more extensive challenge and scrutiny of the executive'.
'Complexity/fusion of roles' with 'clear separation of roles'.
The problem is that much of the committees' report feels like wasting money patching up an old car which is about to be dumped while at the same time you are signing up to buy a new model.
