Respect and trust won’t be restored through changes in the structure of government

In essence, the requerants are saying that it is too soon since changes were made to the machinery of government in 2016 to write it off now. We believe there is too much that is good about the system and not enough understood about the alternative to reject it now. Instead, we think that by addressing specific areas of weakness, significant improvements could be made to how our government works. The requete seeks to address those weaknesses, which is why it is entitled Towards a More Effective Structure of Government.

The fact that Mr Digard wrote an article just five months ago attacking the current consensus system and is a self-confessed supporter of what is called ‘executive’ or ‘ministerial’ government means it was never likely to be looked on favourably by him. However, certain comments made in his most recent column gave a misleading impression about what the requete was seeking to do and which I believe need correcting.

Contrary to what was claimed, it is not about cutting purse strings and providing a licence to spend. Neither does it say anything about influencing public sector pay, staffing numbers or employing more lawyers. What it does say is we should look at whether it is right, or indeed fair, that the president of the Policy & Resources Committee should have to act as both prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer, and suggests either restoring a Treasury Committee or appointing another member of Policy & Resources to the chancellor role.

It also seeks to address the old chestnut that the writer brings up on a regular basis, that of silo working. Whilst we are not seeking to return to the days of a policy council, we do believe that there is a need for a forum whereby Committee presidents can meet with Policy & Resources to discuss common issues, such as in relation to the support provided by corporate services, and work together to turn the Policy & Resource Plan from a ridiculously long wish list to one that is focused on key priority areas. We also believe that it is worth looking at alternative models to strengthen the working relationship between the States and the Law Officers’ Chambers.

There is, however, far more to the requete than what was highlighted in the article and I think it is worth me just mentioning a few aspects that might be of interest. One of the weaknesses of the current system is the lack of a financial scrutiny function. I was never happy that the Public Accounts Committee disappeared in 2016 and I, together with the other requerants, believe that there is merit in considering bringing it back in some form. Reducing the membership of committees from five to three, which is also suggested in the requete, would provide more opportunity to beef up the scrutiny function which was culled in the 2016 changes.

One of the biggest issues of the day is that of air and sea links. This isn’t new. It was an election issue in 2016 and will probably be an issue in 2020. However, we are still waiting for a desperately needed policy to make its appearance this term. We are currently in a farcical position whereby the States through one committee is subsidising private providers to fly on routes competing with Gatwick run by the States airline, at the same time that the latter, overseen by another part of the States, is competing on routes that are operating at a loss and under capacity. It is not helped by the fact that so many committees have responsibility for this area. We therefore believe it is worth considering whether there should be a single committee responsible for connectivity.

We are also suggesting that there should be changes to committee mandates – one of which being to move Sport & Culture to a new committee, replacing Economic Development, which will be responsible for business, sport, culture and digital. At the same time, we suggest that responsibility for skills moves the other way to Education, to become a Committee for Education and Skills.

All that I have referenced to date has been about the internal machinery of the States. However, the requete is about more than that. A constant criticism is that the States of Guernsey doesn’t listen to the public. Whether valid or not, there is no mechanism at present whereby the views of a large cross-section of the community can be heard in any meaningful way on a particular subject. There is a democratic deficit in terms of key issues that are of interest to the wider population and to which the wider population could usefully contribute their knowledge and judgement. That is why we believe that the introduction of citizens’ assemblies, similar to those established by the Irish Government, is worthy of thought. These have considered a limited, but diverse, range of topics from fixed term parliaments to climate change and comprise a chairperson and 99 citizens randomly selected to be broadly representative of the electorate. Something similar could be established here at the beginning of each term, with the Policy & Resource Plan process used to identify a few critical topics which would form the basis of the agenda throughout the term.

We are also conscious that island-wide voting is almost certain to diminish the role of the parishes in local democracy, and believe there is merit in reviewing the roles and responsibilities of both committees and douzaines to see whether these would be better delivered at a parish rather than an island level, or vice versa. We think the concept of a Parish Charter, which would allow for the devolution of certain responsibilities to the parishes which meet a clear set of democratic standards, such as minimum voter turnout, codes of conduct and complaints processes, should be explored.

It is fair say that the requerants believe evolutionary change is better than the revolutionary change which executive government would bring. A lot is made about how much better the latter system would be, that decisions would be made faster and civil servants could just get on with the job without those pesky meddling politicians. Well, anyone who thinks it is the nirvana we are seeking only has to look to the north of us and see what has been happening in Westminster these last three years, or to the south where the Jersey Government has spent over £38m. over a similar period just looking at where to build its new hospital and still hasn’t reached a decision.

Our system of government isn’t perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect system. But it is not broken. Richard Digard quoted a sentence from Horace Camp’s pre-Christmas article in which he stated that he hoped the Assembly of 2020 would close the divide between the people and government and restore the respect and trust that has been lost. I share that hope. But respect and trust won’t be restored through changes in the structure of government, whether profound or not. They will be won through the values and behaviours of politicians and ultimately it is by working together, listening, trusting and respecting each other that the people will have the government they expect and deserve.

DEPUTY HEIDI SOULSBY

President, Committee for Health & Social Care.