Accusations of deputies not working hard enough as debate over their numbers grinds on

Thursday 12 December 2024

Some deputies accused their colleagues of not doing as much work as others and failing to attend briefings as they attempted to make the case for cutting numbers.

It was one of the themes that came out during Thursday's debate on an amendment by Deputy Neil Inder that was sold as a compromise to a requete that proposed reducing deputy numbers by 10.

Deputy Inder's amendment gave an alternative number of a reduction of five and, he argued would save £1m. next term in pay.

It also proposed talks on the number of Alderney representatives and other changes to some committee mandates and make up.

Members rejected the amendment by 21 votes to 18 as the debate about what to do over numbers continued into this afternoon, the Assembly having earlier rejected an increase.

And shortly before the close of debate today, Deputy Inder tried again by removing reference to Alderney and other committees - he again lost.

Pictured: The voting record on amendment 2.

In debate on the first amendment, Deputy Chris Le Tissier asked Deputy Inder what had changed since he argued in January that they should not tinker with the arrangements voted on by the people they represented in the island-wide voting referendum.

He wanted to understand Deputy Inder's u-turn.

Deputy Le Tissier referred to the electoral roll being open and people having signed up for an election of 38 members.

"If this requete in general or this amendment in particular passes, how does that effect the people who signed up, some will say under false pretenses?"

Deputy Adrian Gabriel spoke about the cube root law, an observation in political science which states that the number of members of a legislature is about the cube root of the population being represented.

For Guernsey this was 40.058241.

"If we are trying to determine what size of government we want on the hoof and only six months before a General Election, then please let us learn and use a tried and tested scientific method in our approach."

States Assembly and Constitution Committee President Carl Meerveld said he would vote against all amendments that suggested changing the numbers of the floor of the House against what the public had already decided in the island-wide voting referendum in too short a time period before the election and in a completely arbitrary way.

"We need a group to do this work properly. We should not be six months before election restructuring this government on the back of one sheet of A4 plonked in front of us at this time, with a combination of naval gazing and populism."

Pictured: Deputy Carl Meerveld.

Deputy Charles Parkinson seconded the amendment. He said they had spent far too much time discussing matters about their roles as deputies, but fortunately he did not have to say too much.

When the amendment was laid, the only option on the table was a reduction of 10, and instinctively they felt that was not likely to succeed and was venturing into the unknown, he said. It was just trying to give options which was a more "gradual streamlining approach".

"My own view on that is simply that I think the States would function perfectly well with five fewer members, five fewer deputies, potentially one fewer Alderney rep, and we can see how it works," said Deputy Parkinson.

Deputy Peter Roffey was not unsympathetic to reducing the number of deputies, but it had to be done on the back of a well thought through and considered review.

Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen said there was evidence now to reduce the number of members. She said the evidence was overwhelming that there were five members too many in the chamber.

"There's considerable difference in terms of the workload ...are we as a body corporate providing value for money? And I really don't believe that we are."

Not everybody in the States was gainfully employed, she said. There were members who had not sat on any committees, and others that were on two.

She also spoke to wider consequential points in the amendment, including her support for reducing the members of Sacc to three members and the Overseas Aid president role responsibilities being taken up by a P&R member instead.

Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez agreed there was "unevenness" in the distribution of work among States members.

"I don't think we're ever going to change the proportion of the people who are less likely or less able to do the same amount of work as others," she said.

Deputy Chris Blin is currently the president of Overseas Aid - he said that the president had to read 200 applications, deal with changes in policy and budget, and media promotion.

He did not support it becoming the responsibility of a P&R member.

The work was "considerable", he said.

"I have to emphasise that the first priority in regard to any possible changes to the Commission and in the absolute forefront of our minds, has to be the ultimate beneficiaries of the life changing and life saving aid provided by Guernsey to vulnerable communities in the developing world. The procedures and processes of how this is achieved is important, but we must always remember that the beneficiaries themselves must remain as our main focus."

Pictured: Deputy Mark Helyar is the lead requerant.

The requete envisaged the Commission being an external function of the States, but did not explain what that meant, he said.

As it only had one States member, for it to be referenced in moves to reduce the number of deputies was a little off - it came across as an afterthought, he said.

Requete leader Deputy Mark Helyar said that if the amendment did not go through or the requete pass there would be other suggestions for change before the election.

There was plenty of time for changes to happen.

"We have a problem that we are simply not able to fix because it's too big an elephant, we waste far too much of our time, as we're doing now, trying to perfect something, to get it absolutely perfect before we do it. That is not the way life works, and that is not the way the problems that we have to face and we have to solve need to be solved."

Deputy Inder said the work in the States was not shared out fairly or equally and that was often by choice. He named people he felt were hard working, and hinted at other colleagues he felt were not.

It was fallacy that this issue needed to go away and be given greater consideration so it will be delivered back perfectly formed was simply not the case, he said.

He felt that the saving of £250,000 a year was a great message.

Deputy Inder consistently tried to blame SACC and its president Deputy Meerveld for not delivering Machinery of Government changes, but was told several times that it was a Policy & Resources initiative.

Late in the afternoon, Deputy Inder tried again to get the reduction of five on the table through another amendment, a move described by Deputy Al Brouard as desperation but supported by Deputy Simon Vermrulen who was keen to get something out of the day.

This amendment removed what was seen by some as contentious issues, like reference to Alderney.

But if the hope had been to buy the support of the two Alderney representatives, it failed, as they maintained their opposition.

Only Deputy Steve Falla changed his vote, and with Deputy Andrew Taylor not voting, the result ended in an 19-19 tie and so the move was lost under States rules.

READ MORE...

Larger States ruled out

Bid to cut 10 deputies from the States in time for next election