Legislation’s shameful scrutiny

Saturday 24th October 2009, 2:30PM BST.

FOR those attending Thursday night’s meeting on possible constitutional change with the UK, there were a number of surprises. The first was the attendance. No one, not even organiser Advocate Roger Perrot, expected so many to arrive or to be from such a wide spectrum of local society.

The second was the depth of feeling expressed by those present, from individuals whose family had been here for ‘only’ 400 years to those much more recently arrived, who felt that the island’s relationship with the UK has deteriorated, largely since Labour assumed office.

Esoteric debates about constitutions are not generally the stuff to get islanders out of their homes on a dark October evening and that so many did – estimates vary from 350 to 400 but St James was largely full – suggests this is a matter of significant concern.

It will take time to see whether the overwhelming vote to pursue the possibility of more autonomy actually triggers political action or, if it does not, what more those behind the calls for change need to do to get this on the States agenda.

Irrespective of whichever way it goes, however, there is an urgent need for the island to reconsider the way it legislates for itself. While there is an issue with how Guernsey laws are ratified – or not – by the Privy Council, it is the means by which they get there which is little short of shameful.

Much legislation, particularly regulatory, is instigated through St James’s Chambers, which advises the States on its need and which assists with scripting the Billet d’Etat justifying its necessity, before moving on to drafting the legislation. From there, the same office will interpret the law, decide whether someone has broken it and then prosecute them in court.

But even if that was desirable in today’s society, the questioning such legislation receives before going to the Privy Council is minimal and is an area where the current system is manifestly failing. As the Wales Audit Office observed, 364 items of legislation totalling 7,236 pages were considered in the last six years but only six (fewer than 300 pages) were withdrawn.

That is not scrutiny of potentially life-changing legislation but deputies nodding through whatever is put in front of them.

1
Dave Jones

November 3, 2009 at 11:42 am

I think on this occasion the press have got it right, the problem we have at the moment is that the States is devoid of any advocates at all amongst its number, in the past you could always rely on people like Rupert Evans, Nick Tostevin, Peter Ferbrache, Roger Perrot just to name a few of the distinguished advocates who once served, to question the validity of what was being proposed or indeed whether we needed it or not. The legislation we have placed before us is drafted in legalise and is often difficult for ordinary bods like me to decipher if you do not have a legal brain. We do of course have the advice from the Law officers but that is usually along the lines of whether the legislation whatever it is will fly or not and these are the same people who draw up the legislation so you would expect them to support their own draft.However in my view this is not the same as having real external scrutiny from qualified advocates as to whether the island really needs it or not. That is not a criticism of our LO’s it is just the way it is. There is without doubt a lot of trust put on the advice we get from the law Officers simply because we do not have the time or the resources to check the accuracy of that advice (Advocates cost money) The legislation committee does have a role in this but even then I am not sure all states members understand what that role is.

Report abuse