The first step towards a brighter future for Alderney?

Over the last 30 years there have been a lot of ups and downs in Alderney-Guernsey relationships. And far too frequently, the islands have blamed each other for their problems. I think, however, that it is time to acknowledge the faults on both sides. Despite widespread recognition that Alderney’s current decision-making systems are too difficult and slow, Alderney has not always helped itself.

Over the last 30 years there have been a number of Alderney initiatives to improve the effectiveness of Alderney’s government. But, most have failed. The major problems – Alderney’s mechanisms for coherent cross-committee policy making are inadequate, there is insufficient time between Alderney elections for change to be formulated and then enacted, and in Alderney it is very easy for those with vested interests in the current way of doing things to frustrate changes.

These obstacles, while having manifested themselves most obviously in the various attempts at government reform, have, of course, also impacted economic development, housing, employment, our relationship with Guernsey and, thereby, health care and education.

In this article, I have looked at the various historic initiatives in Alderney for government reform. I have done this in the simple hope that current renewed attempts are more successful than previously and in the hope that Alderney can, then, position itself to take maximum advantage of any changes the forthcoming Bailiwick Commission brings about.

Let me begin this history in 1996. The review of internal administration by the Home Office Efficiency and Consultancy Unit of that year considered Alderney had too many committees, and that these committees focused too much on operational matters, not policy. Their report led to an increase from three to four years in the term for States members. It was also most likely the belated catalyst for the 2012 Stephen Taylor report and to the gradual separation between the functions of our politicians and our civil servants.

In 2004, the current Government of Alderney Law was enacted.

In 2012, the Stephen Taylor staff analysis focused on restructuring the civil service. It criticised the lack of strategic planning, lack of accurate demographic data and lack of community engagement. Although approved by the States and a recommendation for the appointment of a CEO was actioned, many other recommendations were only partially implemented.

In 2016, the McDonald report, Alderney’s Choices, investigated political governance. It highlighted how past inaction was leading to stagnation and recommended changes that might improve efficiencies and a strengthened relationship with Guernsey. It warned of the dangers from continuing to let all members sit on P&F and of too many decisions made in camera. It recommended a commissioner for standards and further work.

Public reaction to Alderney’s Choices was positive and in October 2016, it was debated in the States. There, the consensus view appeared to be that while the conclusions were valid, the States could drive reform themselves without resorting to expensive consultants.

In January 2017, Alderney’s Choices was followed by an attempt at more limited reforms within the framework of the 2004 Government of Alderney Law. A public consultation on reforms formulated by the chairs of the States’ main committees (I was one) and under the leadership of our then president, Stuart Trought, was undertaken. There were 18 questions/reforms. Analyses of the public responses remain on the States of Alderney website under the title Governance Review Feedback (dated 25 October 2017). All the touted reforms had general public support.

In summary, the idea of moving more debate to the States with more guidance on effective scrutiny and a smaller P&F was received very positively. The need for a vision and strategy with a business plan was also received positively – though there were concerns about the capacity of our civil service to deliver. An external review of the remuneration of States members was supported – with many believing this would help improve the calibre of candidates. Moves aimed at more political stability were similarly supported, with moves to align the dates of our election closer to those in Guernsey and holding election every four years considered important. It was felt that the two Alderney representatives in the States of Guernsey might in future be better chosen – one by plebiscite and the other elected by the States. More openness and transparency were called for. It was considered ethics and conduct should be constantly reviewed.

The individual recommendations were debated first in P&F, then in the States’ chamber. There appeared to be two camps – those who believed the reforms did not go far enough and those who preferred to retain the status quo. As a consequence, the reform process stalled.

In 2018, we had a Good Governance Group that took up the cause for a third time. The focus this time became the role that citizen’s juries and deliberative democracy might play in constructing a new governance model. The initiative fell apart when some on P&F realised they would be only observers to the process.

In 2018, Dr Caroline Morris documented the ongoing failures in a paper: Attempting Constitutional Reform On The Island Micro-jurisdiction Of Alderney. She attempted to explain why the McDonald recommendations had floundered. One interesting suggestion was the intimate nature of the island and its tradition of very personalised politics. The limited resources of our civil service and distrust of and costs of outside consultants were other factors.

In 2019, a reconstituted Good Governance Group got as far as a resolution in the States for a change to an executive style government. This was very much a vote on principle and without detailed proposals - these were to come later. Covid, unfortunately, intervened and so in October 2020, as an interim measure, a requete to reduce the number of members on P&F (and hopefully to force more debate back into the States chamber) was tabled by the chair Kevin Gentle. The item was however withdrawn at the last minute. The main reason given, was the absence of one member. There were promises of immediate more comprehensive proposals the following year.

Beginning March 2021, a now third iteration Good Governance Group, and now chaired by Ian Carter, formulated a comprehensive new set of proposals. They were presented to the public in July 2022. Consultation followed and the matter was scheduled for debate at the September States meeting that year.

In short, the proposal was:

• to reduce the number of States members from 10 to eight;

• for each of the elected members to be allocated a specific area of responsibility – a ‘portfolio’ (finance, general services, economic development, education, arts, culture and sport, health, housing and social services, environment, resources and energy, building and development control, economic government administration and external affairs);

• for three of the elected members to be appointed to an executive council, working with the civil service to manage government processes, prepare billets for full States debates and to act rapidly in times of crisis; and

• for elections to be held every four years and for four-year terms.

Proposals were set out in detail in a publicly-available position paper also still on the States’ website.

The reforms were unfortunately never debated in the States. A state of ‘purdah’ consequent to the forthcoming general election (and also a by-election) was declared. Although not required by Alderney law, the inappropriateness of dealing with major political issues such as this in the period before elections was championed by the president and some others. It was not, however clear whether this purdah was the consensus view of P&F, or if they even were consulted. Alderney had not previously observed purdah, but the call was, nonetheless, enthusiastically taken up by one member who had declared himself against reforms, and who had prior to the 2018 elections, been loudly against any form of purdah.

Sadly, in 2023 the reforms were not picked up by our new government. Changes to the code of conduct for members were, however, tabled but were defeated. This time the defeat was a result of inquoracy – two members were absent from the chamber. But at the end of 2024, and beginning of 2025, after a further general election and by-elections for two members who had resigned, there were a number of States members vigorously calling for change.

We now know at least one of the new members, very much in favour of government reform, was now being hounded by a series of code of conduct referrals. But in late 2025 most of the earlier changes mooted to the code of conduct, together with the appointment of an independent commissioner for standards, were finally enacted.

I am pleased to note the latest code of conduct referrals have now been dismissed.

Fewer, but better, States members, joined-up government and faster decision-making just might be the first step towards a brighter future for Alderney.

So I for one am welcoming the latest P&F initiatives for change – four-year terms, a reduction in the number of States members from 10 to eight and alignment of our elections with the elections in Guernsey. Baby steps perhaps, really good, but sadly though I hear that one member who steadfastly opposed all previous attempts at reform is still trying to frustrate change – this time on the grounds that it is untimely given the imminent start of work by the new Bailiwick Commission. But surely this imminent start makes reform all the more timely? I believe it will show Guernsey that, at last, Alderney has people in charge willing to drive change.

In 2018, I wrote in the GP about the 1948 Agreement. I said it was time for a review as it was past its sell-by date. The realignment that emerges from the Bailiwick Commission must be based on mutual respect and genuine cooperation. And I take this opportunity to push for an idea that I was keen on then. As a step towards preventing a recurrence of previous recriminations, I am today lobbying for legislation similar to that in Scotland. This requires the Scottish government to assess the impact on its islands of all new policies and legislation.

I finish with a 2016 quote from Andrew McDonald: ‘I write as one who has come to have a great affection for the island and its people. I write also as one who fears for Alderney’s future. I fear that unless it is willing to undertake reforms now, it will not prosper in years to come.’ Alderney has had 10 years of stagnation – Andrew McDonald was right.