It wanted the current States to begin a review of the machinery of government, which would then be handed over to the new government to consider further and decide whether to implement.
It was due to be put forward in the States today, but has been pulled by its proposers, who do not think the “culture” of the current States will lead to a productive debate.
“The origins of the requête began last year as an honest attempt to have a genuine discussion about the current system, with a view to addressing these weaknesses in a spirit of positivity,” the Deputies said. “We saw the requête as the chance to bring together ‘lessons learnt’ from this term and to pass them on to the next States, in the hope our successors will use them to do better than we have done. At the same time we did not want to force changes on the next States but to pull together the collected wisdom from this term, giving the next States both the information and mechanism to turn them into practice.
“Sadly, however, it is has become increasingly apparent over the last few days that this positive attitude has not been universally embraced. We were particularly disappointed by the tone of the letter of comment from the Policy & Resources Committee.”
Pictured: Deputy Rob Prow seconded the requete.
In that letter, P&R said the seven Deputies had failed to identify any major structural weaknesses, “lacked cohesion” in their submission and had put forward propositions that were likely to result in a “largely introspective” debate.
“It can be seen that, whilst one or two areas have been highlighted as potentially warranting attention, overall there seems to be little appetite from Committees to pursue the matters set out in the requête, nor is there any consensus regarding matters that might be taken further,” said Deputy Gavin St Pier. “For its part, whilst the Committee concurs with the requêrants that any structure of government benefits from regular reviews, it does not support the requête, as it feels the timing is not right for a review of the structure of government.”
The wording of the requêrants’ rebuttal, and the stance that they would be making no further comment beyond that statement, suggests that new divides have opened up between States members.
“The requêrants believe that the letter of comment itself, with its underlying message that the [P&R] Committee thinks things are working well, demonstrates just why change is needed,” they said. “We will say no more on this and the fact that the Committee has now agreed to progress work that it had not prioritised previously, other than to express our dismay as to the lack of engagement. This is exemplified by the development of an amendment which the Committee says in its letter of comment it is laying, but which appears to be incorporated into another laid by two other members of the States.
Pictured: Policy & Resources asked other States committees for their view on the requete, and felt the responses showed little appetite to push forward with the requete’s suggestions.
“Given the positions taken, we are worried that there will be little or no constructive debate. Indeed, we are concerned that it will not show the States in a great light and go against all that we were trying to do to make things better.
“We have therefore decided to submit a motion to withdraw the requête for debate this week and instead will be seeking to amend the Policy & Resources Committee’s handover report that it will present at the end of this term to ensure that the next States does address those issues we consider important to enable a more effective government.
“Policy & Resources Committee says that with the right culture and behaviour, any structure of government can work. We say that is not good enough and that with the right culture and behaviour we can have the structure of government that the electorate expect and deserve.”
Pictured: Requête proposer Heidi Soulsby and P&R President Gavin St Pier.