For months Policy and Resources (P&R) has been calling for deputies opposed to GST to come up with “credible” alternatives.
Many believe they have, with at least seven alternative ways forward on the table and many smaller amendments.
Now, at the second debate P&R and supportive deputies have started to put some of the alternatives on the chopping block before even discussing them.
The States of Deliberation has a procedure known as the ‘guillotine’, which allows deputies to vote not to even debate amendments that stray too far from the original proposition.
It exists for good reason, but this Wednesday the Assembly wielded the axe with gusto, leaving some deputies claiming their colleagues were misusing a parliamentary procedure to stifle democratic debate.
And it leaves an awkward question for the committee which has spent months telling its opponents to come up with something better: what is the point of producing alternatives if the Assembly is going to cut the debate short before voting them down?
Cutting debate short
P&R’s main order of business – its controversial GST++ tax reforms – was joined by nearly 60 amendments.
If they were all debated, it would have left deputies about 20 minutes per amendment to debate them and then vote – which meant the Assembly was all but certain not to get through them all in the allotted three days the States sits every month.
So, with a risk that the Assembly would not get through all the amendments before Friday, pro-GST deputies put forward a series of last-minute changes to try to force the vote to happen before Friday.
Forward Guernsey Leader and former Chief Minister Gavin St Pier was a member of P&R when the proposals were being drawn up, but later resigned after he was arrested and later released without charge.
His party put forward a motion to restrict speeches to five minutes, with two and a half minutes longer for the people proposing them to sum up.
Forward Guernsey said this was to speed up the debate – and it passed.
When five become one
The night before the debate, P&R President Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez sent deputies an 11th-hour email informing them that P&R had decided to combine several amendments – again to speed things up.
Five of the six amendments – which were combined into one – came from long-time GST critic Deputy Rob Curgenven.
Deputy Curgenven said he was particularly upset not to be able to devote proper time to his amendments to protect disabled people’s vehicles from GST.
He heavily criticised P&R’s authoritarian “behind closed doors” approach, saying it went against Deputy de Sausmarez’s promises of an assembly “working collegially”, before she became P&R President.
Far from being a parliament of equals, Deputy Curgenven said he worried the Assembly risked becoming dominated by a “P&R Party” of the committee and its supporters, including Forward Guernsey deputies.
“P&R opposes almost everything on the table,” he said, referencing P&R’s official position on the amendments, but not one Forward Guernsey amendment.
“It’s nice to see they’ve found some new members.”
Chopping block
When the Assembly last debated P&R tax reform proposals in July, many were highly critical of the States for refusing to even debate some proposals, such as Deputy David Goy’s PIT framework – a series of wealth taxes and other radical proposals.
Deputy Haley Camp branded the decision a “disgrace” at the time, while Deputy Goy told Express he was “deeply disappointed”.
However, far from being more open to debating alternatives this time around, the States appeared to double down.
Four amendments were ‘guillotined’ on Wednesday, meaning they were axed before they could even be discussed.
They included two proposals from Deputy Liam McKenna (to scrap the GST vote and to hold a referendum on it), one from Deputy Chris Blin (to look at taxing insurance), and one from Deputy Adrian Gabriel (to temporarily increase income tax by 2%).
Between 22 and 25 deputies supported each of the guillotine motions.
What is a guillotine?
The ‘guillotine’ is a formal States procedure which allows debate to be brought to an end before all members who want to speak have done so.
Under Rule 26, a member who has not already spoken in the debate can ask the Presiding Officer to “close a debate on any matter”.
Members who still wish to speak are asked to stand, before the Assembly votes on whether to end the discussion.
If a majority supports the request, debate closes and the matter goes straight to a vote.
The procedure exists to keep debates focused and ensure the Assembly can complete its business, so typically only amendments that stray too far from the original proposition are guillotined.
Sensible decision or stifling debate?
GST opponents will argue that the amendments being cut short this week were not side issues or distractions, but proposals dealing directly with the future of Guernsey’s tax system.
Many of those who voted to guillotine them will argue that it’s important to get to the final vote on P&R’s proposals – at all costs – instead of kicking the can down the road, yet again.
It’s undeniable that with the sheer number of amendments it would be physically impossible to debate them all thoroughly in three days.
P&R has argued that it’s time to take a decision.
GST opponents have argued that the decision is too important to rush.
Over the next few days, deputies will have plenty more opportunities to kill alternatives to P&R’s tax package before they’ve been debated.
If they choose to wield that blade there’s a better chance the States will make a decision on GST this week.
The question, though, is will the public see it as a mercy killing of the endless GST jibber-jabber… or a knife in the back of democratic debate?
