Select a region
A review into how the States of Guernsey responded to the covid pandemic has led to a recommendation that alternatives to the Civil Contingencies Authority should be investigated.
Early last year politicians chose to reject an independent review into how the island tackled the pandemic, but rather agree to a proposal from Policy & Resources to undertake an internal review.
The findings of this review and audit have now been published in a report that can be read ONLINE. The States of Guernsey found that it had delivered an effective response to the pandemic emergency.
While the findings have been demonstrably positive, questions were raised about the type of executive government utilised throughout the pandemic.
In response to the threat of covid to the community, the CCA was convened to allow tough decisions to be made quickly. The CCA could instruct various committees to do certain things and instil emergency legislation without the usual parliamentary hoops to jump through.
While it inarguably benefited the island to have a more executive form of a government during a rapidly changing global emergency, its reach and continued existence didn’t always sit right with the community or some of the island’s deputies.
“The consensus basis of the States of Deliberation does not sit easily alongside the quasi- executive basis under which the Authority makes decisions where an emergency is likely to occur, is occurring or has occurred,” the report states.
“This imbalance inevitably creates tensions between the members of the Authority and other States Members and these were exacerbated due to the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, for most people an ‘emergency’ whereby the Authority may be required to act was regarded as a particular event which was likely to be of relatively short duration, with any ongoing impact of the emergency event reverting to the Committee(s) whose mandate(s) covered the actions necessary for a return to BAU. An emergency lasting nearly two years was not anticipated when the Law was proposed.”
The report argues that it is beyond the scope of the review “to determine whether relying on the Authority as the princiapl decision maker about what measures were necessary, urgent and proportionate to prevent, control or mitigate an aspect or effect of the COVID-19 emergency was the right decision, or whether a new law should have been proposed, with powers which were specifically focused on the measures that may be necessary to protect the human welfare of Bailiwick residents in the pandemic”.
However, it has instead recommended that there should be a review of whether there is a more suitable alternative legal mechanism by which to manage an emergency in the future.
It is one of seven recommendations made within the report that should be “carried forward” by the States of Guernsey in the wake of the pandemic. Whose specific responsibility this will be, is not clear.
The report also shed more light on the financial cost of the pandemic and Express will be diving into the figures today. More to come...
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.