THIS States has spent a lot of time navel-gazing on internal, governmental matters. To be fair, most Houses do that – but the class of 2008-2012 has taken the habit to a new level.

There have been multiple reports on island-wide voting and on the principles of good governance [with another to come], not to mention the unavoidable subject of deputies’ pay. But the real elephant in the States Chamber over the last three years has been something far more fundamental: should Guernsey retain its present system of ‘consensus government’, with executive power diffused throughout the parliament, or should it move further towards cabinet government?

This question has never really gone away and is likely to be resuscitated if the Policy Council institutes the rumoured review of Guernsey’s machinery of government. Such a review is certainly needed. It’s seven years since major changes were introduced following the Harwood Report, although the States firmly rejected ministerial government at that time.

After seven years of experience of the new, slimmed-down committee system it’s surely time to consider if it’s working well or if any fine-tuning is needed.

Some of the questions that need answering are obvious. Do we really need 10 separate departments of government or could we manage with just seven or eight? If so, how should the mandates be allocated to ensure the maximum benefits in terms of coordinated, effective government and cash savings? How many deputies do we need to populate those departments and committees and to carry out all the other functions required to ensure a robust democracy? Are 45 politicians too many in such a tiny community?

Then there are other questions. How big should departmental committees be? Should there be non-States members on those committees and if so, in what role? What about the brand new political creations brought in back in 2004, such as the Policy Council, select committees and the chief minister? Are they all working to the optimum, or are any changes needed?

Then what about the plethora of Policy Council sub-groups? Are they needed or should the relevant departments just work together more? Are States members less rounded politicians these days because they tend to serve on only one department? Does that create ‘silo thinking’? Should they ideally have a broader view / experience of government? The list goes on.

The danger is that the whole shooting match gets hijacked by a set-piece argument between the advocates of cabinet government and those who prefer the current consensus model. For the record I prefer the latter, for all its weaknesses, to the sort of lame cabinet system we have seen emerge in Jersey. Indeed, I don’t really see how a top down, ministerial system can possibly work well without party politics.

That’s not to say there can’t be improvements to the consensus model – and the first question is whether we really have consensus government at all. In fact, do we even have a democracy in the sense that the various component parts of the States respect majority decisions by the entire assembly?

Let me take two examples. They’re controversial ones, but the question isn’t whether the States got them right initially, but rather whether the decisions have been ignored by two ‘tails’ hell-bent on wagging the dog.

The first is paid parking. The States agreed to it and told Environment to come back with detailed proposals. They refused. Instead, they came back with a cunning plan to put extra duty on fuel, which was totally at odds with the previously agreed Integrated Transport Strategy. Their reason was that as individual deputies the board members didn’t really like the idea of paid parking, so they weren’t going to do it, no matter what the States had decided. Consensus – what consensus?

The second is civil partnerships. When I and other deputies brought the matter to the States five years ago, the Policy Council asked the States to reject the requete. They explained they weren’t against the idea but it couldn’t be regarded as a priority when they had other work to do. It was a valid point of debate. The House considered it and overruled the Policy Council by a significant majority.

The Policy Council’s reaction? ‘Let’s pretend we never had that instruction from the States – this isn’t a priority, let’s put it off for at least eight years.’

Before any ministers have the temerity to claim that consensus government isn’t working, they should consider their own role in that failure.

Louise Cole

45

THIS States has spent a lot of time navel-gazing on internal, governmental matters. To be fair, most Houses do that but the class of 2008-2012 has taken the habit to a new level. There have been multiple reports on island-wide voting and on the princip

55.62