‘Effectively a 75% voting threshold is no hurdle at all’

It is good that P&R appreciate people have a genuine concern that once GST is introduced at a low level future States members will be tempted to gradually increase the rate so that over time we end up with a high level GST. P&R seem to be considering including a resolution that sets the level of approval needed to increase the rate of GST to 75% of States members rather than the normal simple majority of 50%+1, and that this higher than normal voting threshold would act as a hurdle to the rate of GST being increased.

As hurdles go, this 75% voting threshold would be a very, very low threshold.

I recall former Bailiff Sir Geoffrey Rowland noting on more than one occasion that States’ resolutions are not laws, that they do not bind the States, and their adherence is a matter of political judgement rather than law.

It only needs a simple majority of States members to change any States’ resolution. So, if 50%+1 of States members want to increase GST they could vote to remove the 75% threshold and then vote to increase the rate of GST. A lot easier than making difficult spending decisions.

Importantly, such a decision could be led from the floor of the Chamber on the day of the meeting, on the spur-of-the-moment without any advance notice nor consultation.

Effectively a 75% voting threshold is no hurdle at all.

However, it could be a hurdle. But, to be an effective hurdle the 75% voting threshold has to be created in such a way that the threshold itself can only be changed by 75% of States members rather than the normal 50%+1.

Could the answer be to have a States’ resolution saying the 75% voting hurdle can only be changed by a 75% majority? No, this would not be sufficient since this second resolution could itself be changed by 50%+1 of States members. OK, there would need to be three resolutions in all, but each would only need the support of 50%+1 of States members – and up goes the rate of GST.

I think that a 75% voting threshold can only be a true safeguard if the 75% voting threshold resolution itself needs 75% of deputies to agree and that both ‘rules’ need to be enshrined in law, with two separate items of legislation.

The first is that the GST legislation has to explicitly state that 75% of voting States members have to agree to any change in the rate of GST, setting the limit as a matter of law means the States cannot simply vote to ignore it, it could only be changed by amending that item of legislation, which is a lengthier process.

However, it’s only takes 50%+1 of the States to change a law, therefore the second aspect has to be that the GST Law also states that any change to the part of the law setting the 75% voting threshold can itself only be changed with the agreement of 75% of States members.

This legislative ‘double-lock’ would ensure the 75% voting threshold cannot be bypassed by a simple majority and any change to the rate of GST would definitely need the approval of 75% of States members.

I accept that this would be very unusual, but there is precedent, I think it relates to constitutional issues, but there is at least one piece of legislation which does include a 75% agreement threshold.

A slightly further safeguard would be for the restriction to state 75% of States members in office rather than 75% of those who actually vote.

Hopefully, if GST is brought in, it does include a way of actually ensuring that it is difficult for the rate to be increased and not just playing lip-service to that effect.

Peter Gillson
St Sampson’s