It is not just approving new laws that needs speeding up

GUERNSEY'S drive for more independence from the UK has been some time in the making.

There have been key scene-setters along the way. Who remembers, for instance, the national interest around a 'secret' seminar in 2007 when deputies gathered up at La Trelade to be presented with options for a full breakaway or some kind of federation with Jersey?

Of course, even then it was never realistic that deputies would push to completely end the 800-year relationship with the UK, especially over a few cups of tea and some sandwiches.

Public meetings have attracted plenty of interest in the constitutional issues at play, while the more radical thinkers toy with ideas of federations and cutting links with the Crown.

It will come as little surprise that the committee set up to investigate greater autonomy has come back with a more measured approach.

They envisage the next States opening talks with the UK over a new way of major laws being approved and more freedom when agreeing to international treaties.

The first point is key.

In the past the process for local laws achieving Royal Assent has been politicised – there is a twee outward veneer of the Queen signing these things off, but the reality is anything but.

Whoever is in power in the UK can hold up the legislation before it gets on the agenda for the secretive Privy Council meeting of government ministers where approval is given.

That inhibits the free will of the island.

Laws aren't just about crime and punishment, they bring about policy changes that reflect where Guernsey wants to be as a society, for example with equal marriage and Sunday trading, or can make or break its competitive advantage in different industries, whether that be registering image rights, administering trusts or fostering fin-tech.

Hold-ups in getting new laws through the Privy Council have lessened in recent years with improvements in the process.

But for the committee, that is no reason not to push ahead with the changes.

It points to the reducing resources being dedicated to managing relationships with the Crown Dependencies within Westminster because of austerity.

Each change of government could bring around a change of tack and at the very least leads to a brain drain as people who understand the current arrangements are lost.

The committee proposes a new system modelled around one already employed by the Isle of Man where the vast majority of laws are signed off by its Lt-Governor. Under the Guernsey model one of the law officers, who are employees of the Crown, would sign off the law as not conflicting with the island's international obligations or the requirement of good government. Everything would be sent to the UK, which would have six weeks to raise any objections. If there were, there would be talks or the law withdrawn.

If not, the Lt-Governor could ratify the law on behalf of the Queen. There would still be the option for the Lt-Governor to reserve his delegated authority in favour of Royal sanction by the Privy Council – which would also be needed if there was a prolonged period without a Lt-Governor in place.

Of course, there is an anti argument that sees the role of the UK as a necessary layer of scrutiny to Guernsey making mistakes.

No one is infallible and legal opinions about laws meeting international obligations or breaching good governance are just that, opinions.

Would there be another qualification added to the job description for the Lt-Governor to ensure whichever distinguished military head is in the role has the necessary skills to scrutinise and challenge the finer points of law?

What of the increased workload it could lead to on-island?

The report notes the possibility of additional work for Policy Council staff and the law officers – the latter is already by its nature not a cheap operation to run – but says it should be balanced by a reduction in follow-up enquiries and administrative work under the current system.

The word 'should' in any States report needs to ring alarm bells.

There have also been no formal talks with the UK or the Crown – both reactions will be fascinating and say a lot about whether Guernsey is, as the States argues, a mature democracy meeting the highest international standards.

While attention is pulled towards this area, the Assembly would do well to review where it is with the process behind the drafting of new laws itself.

While achieving Royal Assent can cause delays, they are nothing when compared with those seen as the States prioritises them and gets them to the law officers to be drawn up.

Information from October 2014 on outstanding States resolutions – presumably the latest list drawn up because no end of searching the new government website comes up with a fresh one – shows more than 70 resolutions from as far back as 1996 that still need to be dealt with (or rescinded as they were so long in the making).

Even January's meeting, at which the constitutional proposals will be debated, has a law that relates to a resolution in 2006 for firearms controls, an ordinance relating to the endangered species trade which brings into effect a 2006 vote and a new offence under the plant breeders' rights law from a debate in 2002.

The team behind the latest report on Guernsey's relationship with the UK say that 'this process should not be viewed as the culmination of evolution in the constitutional relationship between Guernsey and the UK, but rather as an important next phase.'

If approved, the talks next term will say much about the island's standing in the eyes of the UK.