This Is Guernsey

LORD Chancellor Jack Straw is again being asked to throw out Sark’s proposed moves towards democracy.

The island’s reform law has already been sent back once. But subsequent changes made by Chief Pleas – for a fully elected House – have not gone far enough for some.

Two more petitions against the revised law have been received by the Privy Council, the body that has to approve it.

One is from Brecqhou owners Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, who have proposed amendments set to go before Chief Pleas at its next meeting to bring about the changes they want.These are to:

* remove certain powers from the Seigneur;

* transfer the powers of the Seneschal as presiding officer of Chief Pleas to a president elected from Chief Pleas conseillers;

* change the provisions that only British citizens can vote or stand for office in Sark; and

* introduce electoral reform requiring the counting of votes using a single transferable vote procedure and allowing for the creation of constituencies and the maintenance of a rolling register of electors.

They also want the proposed remuneration set to be paid to the Seigneur to be scrapped.

In a report in support of these changes, Sir David and Sir Frederick include correspondence between the main parties involved in the reforms.

‘It shows that as long ago as 20 November, the Seigneur wrote to the Ministry of Justice,’ the report says.

‘It shows that the Seigneur expressed his desire to achieve a new constitutional settlement, acceptable to the Sark community, in which his role, if any, would be very much more circumscribed that at present.’

Chief Pleas did not know about the letter or its content.

‘It has an obvious and important bearing on the question of whether or not the Seigneur’s role should be reformed and the extent to which any stipend should be paid, if at all, if, in fact, the Seigneur is to have much reduced or no duties.’

The report claims the correspondence shows the extent to which the Seneschal has been managing the business of Chief Pleas before its meetings with the clear intention of achieving a specific result in favour either of recalling reform legislation which did not contain option A – a House with no seats reserved for the landowning tenants –  or promoting a replacement that did.

‘It is evident that the Seneschal has been working towards a specific political end outside Chief Pleas without the full knowledge of its membership. It was partisan and quite inappropriate and the clearest evidence of the need to reform that office.’

The Privy Council was expected to consider the reform law at its March meeting, but the two petitions meant there was not enough time.

‘We expect a decision to be made shortly on recommendations in relation to the petitions and the laws,’ said a Ministry of Justice spokesman.

Chief Pleas meets on Wednesday 26 March.

Tenant John Donnelly also has a proposal on the table to withdraw the reform law for further changes, including creating constituencies.

He also wants an investigation into freedom of information legislation.