That proposal has been criticised by Catholic leaders and faces an amendment from Deputy Bob Murray, who wants the five-year limit scrapped.
“Deputy Roffey and his Committee have brought the States of Guernsey and our community into disrepute through the disgraceful, dismissive and disrespectful way they have treated the delegation from the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth,” said Deputy Meerveld, referring to a recent meeting between the Committee and the Diocese.
“I believe the behaviour of Deputy Roffey and his Committee is the real issue that needs addressing.
“Deputy Roffey and his Committee have brought proposals that could result in the closure of three excellent, well-loved schools with disregard for potentially incurring millions of pounds of additional costs, requiring higher taxes plus potential legal expenses.
“They would remove choice from parents who wish to have their children educated in a Catholic school. Furthermore, undermining Catholic schools’ ability to appoint Catholic head teachers discriminates against the Church and its rights to operate schools according to their ethos.”
Pictured: The Bishop of Portsmouth claims a recent meeting with ESS had been conducted in a hostile manner from the outset, which Deputy Roffey refutes.
“I believe the proposed legislation is yet another example of woke, nanny state proposals which will increase government intervention in our lives and increase costs for both government and businesses. However, whatever the perceived merit of the proposals, I can conceive of no justification for the behaviour of this committee.”
Deputy Roffey defended his Committee and pointed to States’ resolutions which required the Committee to go to the States with detailed proposals on how a new anti-discrimination law should deal with the grounds of religion or belief and sexual orientation.
“The Committee is simply doing what the States instructed us to do, which was to propose a list of exceptions under the two new grounds which the States have decided should form a part of phase one of the law,” said Deputy Roffey.
“I note that Deputy Meerveld voted to amend the Committee’s policy letter last year to instruct us to include both sexual orientation and religion in the list of grounds to be included in phase one of the law, so it seems odd that he now describes this as ‘nanny state’.
“The final decision will be one for the States, but nothing in our policy letter remotely requires the closure of any school, and nor is that our wish.”
Deputy Roffey said that in developing its proposals the Committee consulted a wide range of interested parties, including representatives of religion, civil society and law firms.
“Most consultees took the time to provide us with their views, but we had no response to the consultation document from the Catholic Church either locally or from Portsmouth, said Deputy Roffey.
“I am at a total loss to understand the allegation that the Committee has treated the delegation from the Catholic Church in a disgraceful, dismissive or disrespectful way. On the contrary, we made time at very short notice to meet with them, listened carefully and respectfully to what they had to say, and responded calmly and politely. We may not have reached a meeting of minds but that is not always possible.
“I hope this week’s debate on this issue is rather more focussed on the issue itself than on over-excitable hyperbole”.