John Gollop: Back in the day...

I have had the honour and privilege, as the Bailiff remarked, of not only having been a member of the States Assembly for over 10,000 days but also appointed as acting presiding officer on two occasions, following on from previous long-serving members, like Conseillers Dan le Cheminant and Mary Lowe, who sat in the Bailiff’s distinguished judgement seat overseeing the States of Deliberation.

I would like to think my selection and position as now senior acting presiding officer is due to my learning, law degree, 19-year service on the legislation committees and brilliant ability. But it largely isn’t.

It is a gift and privilege of the Bailiffs, fundamentally based on length of service, which unlike the House of Commons is adjudicated on cumulative rather than just continuous service, so my two able supporting acting presiding officers are Peter Roffey and Lyndon Trott. All three of us this term uniquely presided over a three-day meeting when the Bailiff visited Germany on civic matters and the Deputy Bailiff was recovering from Covid. The members were very kind to me and I recall the only difficult moment was having to decide whether an emergency rule question to Education Sport & Culture should be asked and I allowed it, to not show favouritism. However one downside of being in the most important seat was that I couldn’t pose questions, make amendments, vote or speak on topics. Weirdly enough some members wished I could do the job more often.

Although Deputies Roffey and Peter Ferbrache predate my service in political office, starting in 1982 and 1994 respectively, they took career sabbaticals. Thus as my service started in 1997, I am deemed the longest serving current member. Deputy Lyndon Trott spent three years prior to 2000 as a member of the Sea Fisheries Committee as an expert practising non-States member, but I first took office as a deputy on 1 May 1997. As I was elected and sworn in when Sir John Major was still just prime minister, I am still serving as the ninth prime minister Sir Keir Starmer presides over cabinet in Whitehall.

As the longest-serving member of the States I also gained the honorary and unofficial title of Father of the House. This is an odd, slightly media-influenced anglicisation of our customary system as we are not a parliamentary house but an assembly, and indeed we changed our SACC committee to its present assembly title from the technically and constitutionally inaccurate House Committee nomenclature under senior legal advice. It is also unusual for me as I am not a father of any kind or a fatherly figure particularly. I succeeded not another Father of the House, but a Mother of the House too, as Deputy Mary Lowe served two terms as the most senior member. I am by no means the oldest in age of the current States members, with I guess at least one being at least a decade older.

The title Father of the House implies great sagacious wisdom and gravitas, as Conseiller Roger Berry showed in the role previously. Interestingly enough, in Westminster annals the first Father of the House to lose his seat while seeking re-election was Worthing MP Sir Peter Bottomley in 2024 during the unexpectedly large Labour landslide. I dislike the title as Father of the House carries with it hints and echoes of aged perspectives, an obsession with tradition, elderly age and reluctance to change, whereas in reality I have inherited the unofficial position accidentally. Coincidentally like, the great Sir Winston Churchill I have been both the Father of the House and, as the youngest member before the arrival of the millennium and Lyndon Trott, the Baby of the House too.

So I’ve been there a long time, including as a student, columnist, commentator, candidate and pundit sat in the public gallery for at least 13 years previously. So I have seen from the outside and inside some four decades of politics and politicians’ debate and rule. It has to be remarked and observed that the word politician implies a full-time career choice as the professional identity was not widely used or understood before the noughties as the 55 Guernsey States members were generally not paid full time and had other jobs. Yes, there were 55 of us then – 10 douzaine representatives, one from each parish, 33 deputies and 12 island-wide conseillers, when I arrived. When people say there are too many members now, at 38 deputies I quietly smile, but of course debates and speeches were generally shorter then.

I am not convinced the political agenda is more sophisticated now. Back in the day defence contributions, the Edwards report, trust fiduciary legislation, restructuring the Alderney breakwater, extending the hospital and rebuilding the airport were all key topics. Ironically, planning changes, house construction, funding home-buyers and selecting a ferry tender were all also key topics. The difference was more in terms of atmosphere and culture. Roger Berry, as the president of Transport and Board of Administration, would not have dreamed of contracting a ferry company without mass public meetings, a billet report, a States formal debate and resolution. In contrast, this States delegated much of the heavy lifting to Deputy Neil Inder’s leadership and Economic Development with senior staff support.

Firstly I would remark that back in the 80s and 90s there were many committees, some staffed very efficiently by a central secretariat from Frossard House. The workload was shared out more fairly. One current hard-working first term member has taken on the equivalent of 10 old committees. The agendas of current committees are too large in some cases, although to be fair the old Board of Administration was very large and all-encompassing.

There have been many changes over the years but sadly not a significant increase in the number of less affluent, younger members or women. The average length of service for members has dropped with more electoral defeats and less continuity. We have revolved from the abolition of all island-wide representatives to their complete domination, albeit possibly temporarily.

Some observers believe our standards have dropped, especially in respectful debating terms. I remember back in the day some savage debates on homosexuality law reform, economic policy on left-right issues and island electoral systems, but maybe now members are more informal and are more likely to drop in members’ first names and use slang. Social media has changed our conversation and we are all a bit more careful and woke. I think the members’ code of conduct has made a very powerful impact on political deliberations – not necessarily always for the better – as online and social media affects behaviour and complaints can be weaponised. Another change of significant importance has been the growth of parties, factions and groupings – both overt and covert. This can influence committee politics and relationships

Electronic voting has probably made a difference too, and not just in time saving, when it works as it usually does, and it has made it impossible for members to be influenced by colleagues. When I started, the most senior members voted first which gave some of us guidance to vote their way or the precise opposite.

But the two biggest changes concern the civil service and operational focus. Deputy Helyar has strongly argued that members can be distracted from top priorities by being driven to a destination in a metaphorical bus they do not want to go to. Well maybe some of us want to be passengers. But his point is right that an increasingly highly-trained and empowered public sector will lead less-experienced deputies. We have exploded the number of statutory officials’ tribunals, legislative powers and commissions, and deputies have left operational areas from trading boards to population management, public transport or open licensing meetings for bus fares.

Most deputies, especially senior figures, want to reduce the time spent on so-called operational involvement. When I started, deputies were frequently involved on recruitment boards, opening tenders, making minor planning decisions and giving grants and granting catering concessions. All this has been eroded. Deputies have been paid more for less work in many respects. We remain accountable for the occasional operational foul-up and issue, but have no power knowledge or responsibilities. We need a reset, some evolution of democratic systems and a re-evaluation of interventions for public confidence.

The discourse of public opinion has changed. It is less parochial, more immediate, more angry and more frustrated. The public has become fed up with ‘the worst States-ever’ perennial jibe. At the same time traditional media has slightly declined in some respects. The language has become anonymised with the elimination of BBC Radio phone-ins, traditional public meetings and presentations, and the rise of anonymous online pen names which has made life harsher for States members.

But the fact that most island-wide elected representatives from 2020 have decided to stand again suggests the government and political roles are not all bad or we wouldn’t see so many candidates.