Elections and a Speaker: the proposition as it stands
The current proposition by Sam Mezec is to replace the Bailiff with a Speaker. The proposition says that:
“The Speaker and Deputy Speaker would be elected to serve for the duration of an Assembly. If elected in the mid-term of an Assembly, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker would serve for the remainder of that term. This approach is consistent with practice elsewhere in the British Isles and Commonwealth.”
“The Speaker and Deputy Speaker would contest their seats at a general election in the usual manner. At the beginning of a new States Assembly term, the previous Speaker and/or Deputy Speaker would be entitled to seek re-election to the post. Whilst a candidate’s previous experience in either role would no doubt be taken into account by States Members, it is not intended that Jersey adopt a system similar to that in the UK House of Commons, where a preference is given, at least in the first instance, to the previous incumbent continuing to serve if that is their will. Fresh elections would take place on their own merits.”
Disenfranchisement in a Small Island Community
That’s all very good, but there is an unwritten rule in the UK that the speaker should not be contested in elections by the major parties. In a situation where there are 650 constituencies, the loss of one seat is not a major issue. In Jersey, where we have just 49 members, and no parties, this could well lead to problems.
The Express and Star noted in 2017 how disgruntled voters were becoming in the current speaker’s constituency of Buckingham where the number of spoilt papers has reached record levels. Buckingham constituent Phil Harriss started a petition called "Give Us A Voice, Not A Speaker"!
Harriss told the Press Association: “Voters in Buckingham haven’t had democratic representation in Parliament since 2009 and their outrage is growing. As well as being undemocratic, the convention is iniquitous and archaic. My children are reaching an age when they are just starting to vote. They are likely to feel completely disillusioned with the political system if their vote counts for nothing and they are not given the opportunity to support the major political parties.”
Now the good voters of Buckingham can do little to rectify the situation. Three candidates outside the mainstream – Independent, UKIP and Green Party – stood last time, but really didn’t stand a chance against the party machines supporting – on all main parties – John Bercow.
The same can almost be guaranteed not to happen here. We only have one political party, and that is not dominant in the States. Deputies in particular are linked to Parishes, and the loss of a Deputy, especially in a small Parish with only one member, would be felt keenly. Senators need to command an Island mandate. The inability to take part would be almost certainly detrimental to their prospects of re-election, especially when fighting a seat against someone who promised not to accept the role of speaker.
Perhaps, ironically Constables would be the least likely to feel the displeasure of voters if all they did in the States was to act as Speaker because they would still administer Parish affairs, and the Connetable's Committee would bring to the fore any Island issues with Parish impacts. The others - Senators, Deputies - would almost certainly face elections from disgruntled parishioners who felt disenfranchised, and it could well become a poisoned chalice with few prepared to accept the role.
Simon Bree notably lost votes in 2018 when he declared he'd try for Chief Minister if elected. What would be the answer of a candidate if asked if they'd agree to be speaker which could also be a similar vote loser?
Just what is a local issue?
“The Speaker and Deputy Speaker would be elected to serve for the duration of an Assembly. If elected in the mid-term of an Assembly, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker would serve for the remainder of that term. This approach is consistent with practice elsewhere in the British Isles and Commonwealth.”
“The Speaker and Deputy Speaker would contest their seats at a general election in the usual manner. At the beginning of a new States Assembly term, the previous Speaker and/or Deputy Speaker would be entitled to seek re-election to the post. Whilst a candidate’s previous experience in either role would no doubt be taken into account by States Members, it is not intended that Jersey adopt a system similar to that in the UK House of Commons, where a preference is given, at least in the first instance, to the previous incumbent continuing to serve if that is their will. Fresh elections would take place on their own merits.”
Disenfranchisement in a Small Island Community
That’s all very good, but there is an unwritten rule in the UK that the speaker should not be contested in elections by the major parties. In a situation where there are 650 constituencies, the loss of one seat is not a major issue. In Jersey, where we have just 49 members, and no parties, this could well lead to problems.
The Express and Star noted in 2017 how disgruntled voters were becoming in the current speaker’s constituency of Buckingham where the number of spoilt papers has reached record levels. Buckingham constituent Phil Harriss started a petition called "Give Us A Voice, Not A Speaker"!
Harriss told the Press Association: “Voters in Buckingham haven’t had democratic representation in Parliament since 2009 and their outrage is growing. As well as being undemocratic, the convention is iniquitous and archaic. My children are reaching an age when they are just starting to vote. They are likely to feel completely disillusioned with the political system if their vote counts for nothing and they are not given the opportunity to support the major political parties.”
Now the good voters of Buckingham can do little to rectify the situation. Three candidates outside the mainstream – Independent, UKIP and Green Party – stood last time, but really didn’t stand a chance against the party machines supporting – on all main parties – John Bercow.
The same can almost be guaranteed not to happen here. We only have one political party, and that is not dominant in the States. Deputies in particular are linked to Parishes, and the loss of a Deputy, especially in a small Parish with only one member, would be felt keenly. Senators need to command an Island mandate. The inability to take part would be almost certainly detrimental to their prospects of re-election, especially when fighting a seat against someone who promised not to accept the role of speaker.
Perhaps, ironically Constables would be the least likely to feel the displeasure of voters if all they did in the States was to act as Speaker because they would still administer Parish affairs, and the Connetable's Committee would bring to the fore any Island issues with Parish impacts. The others - Senators, Deputies - would almost certainly face elections from disgruntled parishioners who felt disenfranchised, and it could well become a poisoned chalice with few prepared to accept the role.
Simon Bree notably lost votes in 2018 when he declared he'd try for Chief Minister if elected. What would be the answer of a candidate if asked if they'd agree to be speaker which could also be a similar vote loser?
Just what is a local issue?
Ian Gorst’s proposition of 2017 suggested that:
"The Speaker would continue to serve as a Senator, Deputy or Connétable and would carry out their duties as a Member of the States Assembly in assisting constituents. The Speaker would be permitted to become involved in local interests and would be available to advise constituents and discuss their problems and concerns."
"The Speaker would be able to raise these matters privately with the relevant Minister, Department, Committee or agency. It would be expected that the Speaker would receive replies and have issues addressed on an expedited basis. This would mirror arrangements which work well in the United Kingdom."
But what are local interests? In a 650 constituency parliament, over an area of 94,060 square miles, there will certainly be local issues for a constituency- planning, parking etc etc - which have no national impact..
It is not so clear what would be local in an area of 45 square miles! Would the issue of camper vans in St Ouen’s Bay be a local or an Island issue? Would housing and rezoning in St Peter be a local or an Island issue?
What if the Deputy of St Peter was the speaker? Would they be able to speak to a Parish assembly and have that reported? Would they be able to campaign for a housing issue? Or would that be an island issue on which they should remain silent?
In the UK, the speaker “will no longer address any issue in a party political manner in accordance with the convention that the Speaker remains impartial.” But how on earth does that translate to a small Island community where there are many independents and only one small party? Granted, the Speaker could not vote or take part in debates in the States, but there are many other times when politicians take up causes before they even get to the Chamber. Should they be silenced on those?
The overlap in a small Island community between local and island interests would be considerable, and while fine in theory, the proposed solution by Ian Gorst would simply not work well in practice. There are not 650 Parishes over an area of 94,060 square miles!
An Interim Solution?
The best interim solution, as I see it, would be that proposed by the Bailiff for an interim transitional arrangement, whereby the Speaker and Bailiff would both be available, and the Bailiff could gradually reduce his role in the States. If then it turned out that the kinds of issues I have noted here proved insurmountable, then a return could be made seamless to the status quo. If it worked perfectly, the Bailiff would come out of the States.
A potentially irreversible solution which turned out to be unworkable would be the worst of all political worlds.
Speaker’s Veto?
“At present the Bailiff is responsible for approving requests from Members when lodging questions, both oral and written, propositions, amendments and making personal statements. If the Bailiff rejects the requests there is no ability to appeal against that decision. I have personal experience and the current arrangements should not continue.” (Former Deputy Bob Hill, giving evidence to Lord Carswell)
The Carsewell review noted that:
“Outside the Chamber, the Bailiff has to consider draft propositions and draft questions, which he must admit unless they contravene Standing Orders. The Bailiff may on occasion discuss these matters with individual members of the States. If questions are not properly framed, the Greffier or the Bailiff will regularly suggest amendments to address the defect and allow the questions to proceed.”
“It was represented to us by a number of respondents that although the Bailiff must apply Standing Orders in all decisions which he makes and is bound to give all members an opportunity to speak when they express a wish to do so, he nevertheless exerts a degree of political influence by the manner in which he carries out his function.”
What is more, as a recent FOI request illustrated, no public record is maintained of the decision making process
“What is the Number of propositions not allowed to be brought to the States by members and effectively vetoed by the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff over the last three years per year?”
“The States Greffe does not keep a record of the propositions which, in accordance with Standing Order 21(7)(c), are not approved for lodging.”
And there is no clear route for appeal:
“Practically speaking, any member who has a proposition ruled out of order can speak to the Bailiff and discuss with the Bailiff how the proposition could potentially be amended to ensure that it meets the requirements of Standing Orders.”
“There is no right of appeal to the Royal Court against a decision of the Bailiff that a draft proposition is out of order. The correct way to challenge such a decision is to bring a proposition to the States under Standing Orders 98(3) and 167(3)(b). Although technically such a proposition also requires the consent of the Bailiff to lodging under Standing Order 21, the test on whether it would be allowed would also be whether it was in order. It would not be out of order simply because it challenged the Bailiff’s ruling on the earlier proposition.”
This is a serious lack of transparency at the heart of the Bailiff's power. By all means he should be able to veto propositions, as it is within his powers, but he should also make available to public scrutiny the reasons for this, if this is requested.
Would an elected speaker have the same powers and be able to exercise them with the same lack of transparency? That is something which no proposition for an elected speaker has ever considered, and yet it strikes at the heart of democracy.
See also
https://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/03/time-to-remove-bailiffs-veto.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2012/05/baillifs-veto.html
What if the Deputy of St Peter was the speaker? Would they be able to speak to a Parish assembly and have that reported? Would they be able to campaign for a housing issue? Or would that be an island issue on which they should remain silent?
In the UK, the speaker “will no longer address any issue in a party political manner in accordance with the convention that the Speaker remains impartial.” But how on earth does that translate to a small Island community where there are many independents and only one small party? Granted, the Speaker could not vote or take part in debates in the States, but there are many other times when politicians take up causes before they even get to the Chamber. Should they be silenced on those?
The overlap in a small Island community between local and island interests would be considerable, and while fine in theory, the proposed solution by Ian Gorst would simply not work well in practice. There are not 650 Parishes over an area of 94,060 square miles!
An Interim Solution?
The best interim solution, as I see it, would be that proposed by the Bailiff for an interim transitional arrangement, whereby the Speaker and Bailiff would both be available, and the Bailiff could gradually reduce his role in the States. If then it turned out that the kinds of issues I have noted here proved insurmountable, then a return could be made seamless to the status quo. If it worked perfectly, the Bailiff would come out of the States.
A potentially irreversible solution which turned out to be unworkable would be the worst of all political worlds.
Speaker’s Veto?
“At present the Bailiff is responsible for approving requests from Members when lodging questions, both oral and written, propositions, amendments and making personal statements. If the Bailiff rejects the requests there is no ability to appeal against that decision. I have personal experience and the current arrangements should not continue.” (Former Deputy Bob Hill, giving evidence to Lord Carswell)
The Carsewell review noted that:
“Outside the Chamber, the Bailiff has to consider draft propositions and draft questions, which he must admit unless they contravene Standing Orders. The Bailiff may on occasion discuss these matters with individual members of the States. If questions are not properly framed, the Greffier or the Bailiff will regularly suggest amendments to address the defect and allow the questions to proceed.”
“It was represented to us by a number of respondents that although the Bailiff must apply Standing Orders in all decisions which he makes and is bound to give all members an opportunity to speak when they express a wish to do so, he nevertheless exerts a degree of political influence by the manner in which he carries out his function.”
What is more, as a recent FOI request illustrated, no public record is maintained of the decision making process
“What is the Number of propositions not allowed to be brought to the States by members and effectively vetoed by the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff over the last three years per year?”
“The States Greffe does not keep a record of the propositions which, in accordance with Standing Order 21(7)(c), are not approved for lodging.”
And there is no clear route for appeal:
“Practically speaking, any member who has a proposition ruled out of order can speak to the Bailiff and discuss with the Bailiff how the proposition could potentially be amended to ensure that it meets the requirements of Standing Orders.”
“There is no right of appeal to the Royal Court against a decision of the Bailiff that a draft proposition is out of order. The correct way to challenge such a decision is to bring a proposition to the States under Standing Orders 98(3) and 167(3)(b). Although technically such a proposition also requires the consent of the Bailiff to lodging under Standing Order 21, the test on whether it would be allowed would also be whether it was in order. It would not be out of order simply because it challenged the Bailiff’s ruling on the earlier proposition.”
This is a serious lack of transparency at the heart of the Bailiff's power. By all means he should be able to veto propositions, as it is within his powers, but he should also make available to public scrutiny the reasons for this, if this is requested.
Would an elected speaker have the same powers and be able to exercise them with the same lack of transparency? That is something which no proposition for an elected speaker has ever considered, and yet it strikes at the heart of democracy.
See also
https://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2017/03/time-to-remove-bailiffs-veto.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2012/05/baillifs-veto.html
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment