SACC President wants "steeper hill to climb" for proposers of late amendments

Wednesday 03 November 2021

The President of the Committee responsible for the States' rules and procedures wants to "improve governance" by making it harder for States' members to get last-minute amendments debated.

Any two members are able to propose amendments to change propositions which have been submitted by committees.

Amendments which would have financial implications if approved by the States must be submitted at least five clear working days before debate starts, but this requirement can be put aside if a majority of the Assembly votes to suspend the relevant rules of procedures.

“Certainly in the last half of last term the rules were suspended too many times - inappropriately frequently for last-minute amendments,” said States' Assembly & Constitution Committee President, Deputy Carl Meerveld. 

“I think last-minute amendments are very dangerous because they don’t allow proper consideration by members or engagement with stakeholders and they can dramatically change policies.”

Pictured: At the October States' meeting, the Policy & Resources Committee saved its proposals for GST from likely defeat by laying an amendment several hours into debate. 

“I would propose a super majority [two-thirds of States' members] rather than the normal majority needed to suspend the rules," he said. “And amendments with [financial] implications could be submitted slightly earlier.”

Deputy Meerveld believes this would bring about a "change in culture".

“It would not stop members from laying last-minute amendments, but just having that as a consideration in the preparation of an amendment would require greater consideration by the member laying the amendment," he said. 

SACC Vice-President, Deputy Lester Queripel, said that when the States met in October there was a prime example of a last-minute amendment. It was laid by Deputy Al Brouard against the annual report of the Guernsey Competition & Regulatory Authority, which was submitted by the Committee for Economic Development. 

Deputy Brouard wanted the Committee to oversee a root-and-branch review of the proportionality of Guernsey’s regulator, which has recently identified anti-competitive behaviour by the Medical Specialist Group, Sure and Guernsey Electricity. The latter contested the GCRA's ruling in the Courts. 

Pictured: Deputy Meerveld asked Deputy Queripel not to dwell too much on Deputy Brouard's admission that he was laying an amendment on industry regulation at the last-minute without any consultation "after 17 years of thinking about it". Deputy Meerveld suggested that Deputy Brouard "probably regretted his wording" after making that remark. 

Deputy Queripel voted to suspend the rules in the States to allow Deputy Brouard's amendment to be debated. However, he was critical of Deputy Brouard for saying in debate that he had thought about laying such an amendment for 17 years and asked why, in that case, it was not submitted further in advance of debate.  

“It was a terrific amendment but you don’t debate a late amendment after 17 years of thinking about it," said Deputy Queripel.

"17 years and he hadn’t consulted with anyone. The rules need to be addressed to avoid that nonsense. You could consult with the whole world in 17 years.”  

Deputy John Gollop, a member of SACC, suggested that Deputy Brouard's amendment, and many other amendments submitted near to or during debate, are meant primarily “to embarrass” the committee submitting the original policy letter and propositions.

Deputy Meerveld responded by saying that laying late amendments with that purpose in mind was a legitimate political move.

Deputy Simon Fairclough, another member of SACC, wanted reassurances that his colleagues on the Committee did not want to propose changes to the States' rules which would stifle debate or set the bar too high for late amendments which might assist the States.

Pictured: 'Super majorities' are rare in the States of Guernsey's Rules and Procedures. A two-thirds majority is required to make changes to the island's electoral system under the 1948 Reform (Guernsey) Law.

“I am supportive of good governance and understand what we are trying to achieve here, but we are saying also that we don’t want to stifle debate," said Deputy Fairclough.

“There are times when late amendments are laid for very good reasons – to try and tidy things up, to address some issue that hasn’t been thought through or to overcome an unintended consequence. 

“I suppose the issue is this is a somewhat grey area. What we are not looking to do is rule out late amendments.” 

Deputy Meerveld said the Committee should be looking for a proportionate response to a long-standing challenge.

“It would just create a steeper hill for [proposers of amendments] to climb because they need to justify their amendments," said Deputy Meerveld.

“What I wouldn’t want is for it to be a tick-box exercise. We want to create a situation where members know that, if they want their amendment to be successful, they should put in effort.

“We are not debating what to do today. This is a discussion for another day. The best first step is for the issue to be raised with the Policy & Resources Committee and see how it could be taken forward with the reshaping government work through a joint approach.”

Deputy Queripel questioned the "irony" of P&RC leading on this issue.

P&RC recently used a last-minute amendment to a debate on tax reform to avoid the States almost certainly defeating its proposals for GST.

In June, once debate was already well underway, P&RC's Treasury Lead, Deputy Mark Helyar, and President, Deputy Peter Ferbrace, laid an amendment which proposed a significant shift in responsibility from the States' Trading Supervisory Board to the P&RC for plans to rejuvenate Guernsey's harbours at a cost of several hundred million pounds.