The States of Deliberation sit Wednesday at the Royal Court House, convening at 9:30am for what is, on paper, a routine Ordinary Meeting. There are trust law amendments, immigration regulations, a Police Complaints Commission appointment, and the usual scheduling business. Routine enough.
But there is nothing routine about the item sitting at the top of the agenda. And given where Guernsey finds itself right now, it deserves more attention than a standard by-election to fill a committee seat normally attracts.
The vacancy: why it matters
The States are being asked to elect a sitting Member to serve as a member of the Policy & Resources Committee, filling the unexpired term of Deputy Gavin St Pier, who has resigned from that office,l.
That is not a minor appointment. P&R is the closest thing Guernsey’s government has to a cabinet – the committee that sets fiscal policy, holds the public finances, and steers the island’s strategic direction. Deputy St Pier was not a peripheral figure on that committee. His departure creates a genuine gap at the heart of Guernsey’s executive machinery.
The context makes it more significant still. This vacancy is being filled in the shadow of the GSTplus debate – the most politically charged fiscal conversation this island has had in years. Whoever takes this seat will sit at the table where those decisions are made and contested. Indeed, as Deputy St Pier was lead on this topic, the new member of P&R could significantly influence the debate.
Reading into the amendments
What makes this week’s P&R election genuinely interesting is that three separate Motions to Vary have been tabled before the vote even happens. Three sets of Deputies, unhappy with the standard election procedure, have moved to change the rules, for this election only, before the ballot takes place.
It’s worth understanding what each one is actually asking for, because together they reveal something important about the mood in the chamber.
Motion to Vary 1 — Deputies Inder and Dorrity
This motion asks the Presiding Officer to allow Members, irrespective of the number of candidates, to question the candidates before voting takes place, with each questioner limited to 30 seconds and each candidate permitted up to one minute to respond per question. The session would run for 15 minutes multiplied by the number of candidates. 
In plain terms: Deputies Inder and Dorrity want scrutiny before the vote. They want candidates on record, answering questions about P&R policy, before their colleagues cast a ballot. That’s a reasonable ask, and it’s not a novel one, but the fact that it has to be tabled as a procedural variation tells you that the standard process provides for none of it.
Motion to Vary 2 — Deputies Gabriel and Dorrity
Motion to Vary 2 is structurally identical to the first, with one difference: the questioning session would run for 20 minutes per candidate rather than 15. 
Deputies Gabriel and Dorrity are backing the scrutiny principle but pushing for more time, perhaps reflecting a view that 15 minutes per candidate isn’t sufficient for a role as consequential as this one, particularly given the fiscal questions currently in play.
Motion to Vary 3 — Deputies Helyar and Collins
This one is the most significant, and the most pointed.
Motion to Vary 3 asks that the election be carried out by recorded ballot — meaning the vote of each Member would be recorded, with the name of each Member and the candidate they voted for included in the Official Report (Hansard). 
That is a demand for full transparency. The normal procedure for elections in the States is a secret ballot. Deputies Helyar and Collins are asking for it to be conducted in public, on the record, in Hansard, permanently.
In a GSTplus environment where questions about who supports what fiscal position and who sits on P&R are not abstract, this is a politically loaded ask. It is asking Deputies to be publicly accountable for who they put into one of the key seats in island government.
Whether the States will agree to it is another matter. But the fact that it has been tabled at all is a signal worth noting.
Why the procedure matters as much as the outcome
It would be easy to view these three amendments as procedural noise – the usual parliamentary fussiness around process. I don’t read them that way.
Three separate motions to change how this election is conducted, all tabled for the same vote, suggest that a significant number of Deputies are uncomfortable with the idea of this particular seat being filled quietly, without scrutiny, by a process that gives the public and their fellow Members no visibility into what candidates actually think about the issues P&R will have to navigate.
That discomfort is legitimate. P&R is not a technical committee. It is a political one, and elections to it should, arguably, reflect that.
What else is on the agenda
Beyond the P&R election, this week’s meeting includes trust law amendments from the Committee for Economic Development, changes to the Register of Contact Details Law from P&R, and a schedule for future States business. There are also several elections: a member for the Committee for Employment & Social Security, three Police Complaints Commissioners, and a member for the Ladies’ College Board of Governors.
The Health & Social Care and Housing committee presidents are also scheduled to make general update statements – worth watching given the ongoing pressures in both areas.
My view
I’ll be direct. The three amendments tabled for today’s P&R election are not parliamentary games. They are Deputies saying, in procedural language, that this appointment deserves more accountability than a standard internal election provides and doing so in a context where the island is having a serious conversation about its fiscal future.
The risk of Motion to Vary 3 is that it will encourage politically motivated voting in the place of voting in line with the best outcome for the islands. The States have long been unable to make decisions which are unpopular, but necessary for the future wellbeing of the Islands and its people.
Whether any of the motions pass, and who ultimately fills the seat, will tell us something about where the States actually are on transparency and on fiscal governance right now.
That’s worth paying attention to. I’ll be watching.
The full agenda for today’s States meeting is available at parliament.gg. The P&R election proposition is P.2026/36.