Well, what a weekend that was in politics.
On Friday afternoon, I met Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, Policy & Resources president, to discuss my ideas on Guernsey’s political system. We had arranged it a little time ago. I wanted her views on our committee structure and on something which has increasingly concerned me in this, my second spell in the States – are we focused enough as members?
Currently, 31 members of the 40-seat Assembly are sitting on the senior or principal committees, an increase of five positions from the previous political term, due to the introduction of the new Committee for Housing. With only Policy & Resources members not allowed on other principal committees, this has resulted in nine members holding membership of two committees, including one who is a president of one committee, and a member of another. In other governments, you would generally be given just one role on which to focus.
I also raised the question of scrutiny with Deputy de Sausmarez. Today there are only three States members on the Scrutiny Management Committee. During my first term in the States, between 2012 and 2016, there were nine members on Scrutiny from within a 47-seat Assembly.
My meeting with the president of P&R took place just before the news broke of the re-arrest of Deputy St Pier and his resignation from P&R, the senior committee. As it happens, I had raised with Deputy de Sausmarez the issues of whether some members have too much on their shoulders and whether everyone is in the right role, as we seem to have lots of unhappy members at the moment.
As far as workload is concerned, the example I used was the role of resources lead, usually referred to as treasury lead by the media, which is currently held by Deputy St Pier, who is also P&R’s vice-president. That role seems to have a very large mandate, all falling on one person, including public finances, property management, public sector pay and IT. There must be a case for roles in government being more focused. On boards in the private sector you would expect more focused director roles, for example finance, commercial, marketing and digital, depending on the needs of the organisation.
It was a good discussion with Deputy de Sausmarez. I have not worked with her before this term, as she was not a member when I was first in the States. When she was first elected, in 2016, I lost my seat in the Vale district, as it happens as a direct result of a reduction in the number of deputies from 45 to 38, a proposal for which I voted. It was ironic that I would have been re-elected had that proposal for which I voted not been put forward or approved.
Then on Sunday Deputy Lee van Katwyk announced that he was aware of at least three members of the States who were so unhappy in the role that they were currently thinking about resigning as deputies. He asked the States Assembly & Constitution Committee to consider making a proposal not to hold further by-elections. My concern is that we are only 10 months into the term, face major challenges just around the corner, and have several members questioning whether they even want to be in the States any longer. I suppose I can see why, with new major problems which seem to arrive almost weekly.
I have also thought about how different this term is when compared to my first term. When comparing them, perhaps it is an advantage to have had the space of nearly 10 years in between my two terms. I was also a civil servant between 2000 and 2007 when the States had many more committees, as well as larger assemblies.
I can see why we have problems. We have reduced in size and since then we had several elections with about half the Assembly being replaced each time. That is a lot of experience to lose. In every new term, almost every role is reshuffled, which means an enormous amount of learning about how the States and committees operate. It is a lot to get your head around, as the States is perhaps 20 businesses all rolled into one.
Sacc is looking only at the number of members of the States, following a direction from the previous Assembly, and is not looking at the machinery of government. It is very likely to report near the end of the political term. In the meantime, I have a quick-fix solution, which could be implemented this summer if there was the political will.
1. Reduce the number of seats on principal committees from five to three. That would take the number in total down from 35 to 21. Members would be allowed to serve on only one principal committee. The three roles on each one could be president, vice-president and finance lead.
2. Increase P&R from five members to six members, with the roles being president, vice-president and external relations lead, digital and IT lead, finance and treasury lead, property lead, and human resources lead.
3. Increase membership of the Scrutiny Management Committee to seven or nine members.
In my view, these changes would focus members on their one main committee. It would mean 27 members from the Assembly sitting on the senior committee or principal committees, so two-thirds would be involved in the day-to-day operation of services provided by the States.
There are important roles on other authorities and committees, such as the Development & Planning Authority, Sacc, the Transport Licensing Authority and the States Trading Supervisory Board. The STSB already has three States members and two members who are not members of the States but can vote on the board. This is a good model, in my view – three States members and two members from outside the States could work well on a much wider range of committees.
This term we have arranged a few joint meetings involving two committees. With five States members and two non-voting members on each committee, and with officials in the room from both committees, you are talking about 20-plus people being present. In my view, that doesn’t work well at committee or board level.
This is just an idea at this stage. To take it forward, I would need to bring a requete, and the Assembly would need to make a resolution to terminate all positions on a set date and hold a fresh round of committee elections. This would give that chance for members to move around. That may be no bad thing, as we elect committee roles as soon as the Assembly is formed, despite new members’ capability and interests often being barely known.
I offer this as a solution if there is enough support to find one with speed. However, I must also stress that I am very keen that we as an Assembly should focus most of all on the one major problem which needs to be resolved this term – the island’s future tax strategy.
