Thursday, 31 July 2008

The Dictator's Charter

Suspension threat for ministers

Ministers in Jersey facing a dismissal vote could be suspended until it takes place, under new rules suggested by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. If the proposals are approved, a minister could not continue working between the vote being lodged and it being held. The chief minister or another minister would take on their duties in the meantime, the committee said. The plans are to be considered by the island's Council of Ministers. Committee chairman Constable Derek Grey said the fear was that a disgruntled minister could cause problems in any interim period between a vote being lodged and it being held. He said: "Are they in a position to give loads of orders to upset the department completely? "If you think about business, it's quite normal, if somebody is suspended, that they have to leave the building. "Quite often they are escorted out, so I think it's no different to what would happen in a normal business."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7533564.stm

For "a disgruntled minister" read "Stuart Syvret"!

This becomes clear if one looks at the wording of the proposition:

The sub-committee did not believe it was satisfactory that a Minister should be able to continue performing his duties after the Chief Minister had decided to lodge a proposition for his or her dismissal, and this view was shared by the Council of Ministers during the consultation that followed the publication of R.105/2007. Once the relationship between a Minister and his or her ministerial colleagues has broken down to the extent that the Chief Minister is seeking the dismissal of the Minister concerned, it seems inappropriate that the Minister, who may have extensive statutory powers and duties, should continue to carry out his duties; but should instead be suspended until the States make a decision on his/her dismissal.

Does this mean (if it got through) that if someone lodged a dismissal vote against the Chief Minister that he would be suspended until the outcome of the vote took place? Alas, no, the wording only covers the Chief Minister dismissing a Minister. In fact, it is clearly increasing the power of the Chief Minister to keep his colleagues in line. Note that when Syvret went, the moment the vote was passed, he was out, despite his offer to act as caretaker until a new minister would be found, and his inter-departmental emails access was immediately canceled. They couldn't get him out quickly enough. This would now happen as soon as a proposition was lodged.

It seems a suitably ridiculous idea by the Committee responsible for the fiasco over election expenses, but it may well get through if enough people have been upset by Stuart Syvret. In fairness, I think it should apply to the Chief Minister too - what if he goes mad, or gaga? Shouldn't it be in the interests of justice that if the States are seeking the dismissal of the Chief Minister, he gets suspended as well?

Chesterton pointed out how this government works: "our representatives accept designs and desires almost entirely from the Cabinet class above them; and practically not at all from the constituents below them. I say the people does not wield a Parliament which wields a Cabinet. I say the Cabinet bullies a timid Parliament which bullies a bewildered people".

This proposition is clearly a vote to make the Chief Minister into the top bully, with extra powers to cane those people he disagrees with. It is an extra stick to beat politicians in the Council of Ministers to keep them in line. It may, of course, not be needed to be used, but the cane will be there hanging on the wall, for all to see.

Where it is so wrong also is that it denies a Minister under threat the proper time to prepare a defense, by putting him on his own, away from any chance of going over his own internal records. What is likely is that it will lead to a culture by which Ministers will ensure they have - in a safe place - copies of records sufficient to mount a defense of any decisions they take, which they would otherwise not have access to in their defense, and which the Chief Minister will have available to him. That will be a likely outcome, and despite the best political will in the world, one that in these days of instant scanning to PDF, one that will be impossible to monitor.

Incidentally, the opposite applies, and in a weird looking glass manner, the Chief Minister retains his post until a successor is appointed, even when he is not a States member, so Frank Walker will be Chief Minister for a short time after the Deputies elections, even when he is not in the States!

Somehow Derek Gray thinks that piece of lunacy is needed for good government!


Links:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/11113-28855-2972008.htm

2 comments:

The Moving Finger said...

My beef is that members facing a vote of censure, or no confidence can vote against it.
How is that Democratic?

LZ said...

I was completely unaware of this.

It hardly comes as asurprise that it's primarily for the benefit of the top man rather than being something applied equally across the board.

It makes one despair that our government seems to be in a gradual state of devolution as regards democracy, both politically internal and external.

I suppose the possible eventual upside of this democratic erosion is that the more the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers empower themselves, the more they will become detached from the rest of the assembly. Thus the more likely the rest of the assembly will become to present an opposition to the Council - unlike the current situation where the vast majority tow the line so as not to upset the apple cart or damage their own future chances of promotion.