CONCERNS from a majority of States members that the chief minister should not sign an international identity agreement with the UK without first seeking approval by the States will be answered by him in the House tomorrow.

Although no details will be released in advance, it is inconceivable that the document will shortly be ratified on behalf of Guernsey.

For him to do so would be to trigger an even worse backlash from the 26 deputies who are, at this stage, merely urging him to reconsider signing it.

While there are concerns about the wording of the framework, Policy Council advisers yesterday put that down to a misreading of the full document and a misunderstanding of its intent.

That may be the case, but the concerns have existed since the framework negotiations were first mooted and not adequately dealt with before endorsement became more pressing. That was an opportunity missed.

Perhaps more significant, however, is one of the objections raised by 26 deputies asking the chief minister to hold off signing the agreement. ‘Failure to bring this matter to the Assembly would totally undermine the integrity and authority of the States of Deliberation,’ they say.

It’s a bold claim – and one rejected by the Policy Council’s recently appointed external relations policy and legal adviser, who operates independently from St James’ Chambers.

Nevertheless, the fact that the claim can be made highlights one of the biggest domestic issues facing the new Assembly: just who is in charge? Like the previous House, there is a presumption that the States as a whole has to take all the decisions. It is one reason why this week’s debate on waste has such potential to become another debacle.

While the framework agreement might not be the cause on which to go to war, it does illustrate the need to establish the lines of delegated authority.

Without that, no chief minister can act effectively with his UK and international peers and that is fundamentally more damaging than any phrasing issues might be.