Rob Prow said that his thinking on the issue ‘has definitely evolved’ over his eight years serving in public office. He now believed that the committee, consensus system, was no longer appropriate for modern government. ‘I think the committee government is very democratic, but I think the problem for Crown dependencies now is we are so tied into a global economy, we’re so tied into international standards, financial crime, OECD-led tax initiatives.
‘These are very, very difficult times. And I think the luxury of committee government and some of all the traditions that go with it are perhaps becoming time-served.’ Deputy Prow said that he was most disappointed that the States had not had a proper debate on the issue during this political term, although it has been a persistent action point.
‘We’ve skirted around the edges, but the public haven’t really had an opportunity to hear the benefits of committee government versus the benefits of some sort of executive government. ‘I would like to see a good robust debate around it, particularly for those who say that we have a consensus government system. Well we don’t.
We hardly agree on anything that’s of import and we all go off into our siloed committees, get our heads down, we’re all guilty of it, and pursue our own agendas.’ Deputy Prow said that his committee, Home Affairs, often faced pressure to respond to international issues and needed to respond quickly. This and similar responses to Covid, trade agreements, and international regulatory standards, required a consensus response, he said.
‘But also health needs to be supported across government, education needs to be supported across government, infrastructure and so on, and we need more joined-up government approaches to all these things,’ he said. ‘Frankly, I think my angst is that committee government no longer delivers that, in my opinion, and so I’d welcome a debate.’.
