Len Norman - A small but significant part of his legacy

Constable Len Norman, who has recently died, has decades of time in the States, and many achievements in and out of the Chamber. I'm going to focus on just one - his time at PPC. During this period, he managed to get the ability to apply for your name to be entered on the electoral role online to make the whole process simpler, and also most significantly, the move to online streaming of States debates, debated in 2015. None of his predecessors - Simon Crowcoft, Jeremy Macon - had either raised the subject or got it though, but Len was determined to do so.

In that debate, 7 Constables voted with him and only 4 against. I'm afraid one of the Deputies in my own district, Graham Truscott voted against. And the current Chief Minister, then Deputy John Le Fondre spoke against and voted against. All Senators were in favour except for Senator Zoe Cameron, who it will be remembered, was often absent from States sittings.

Here is the extract from Hansard, and a fine speech from Senator Norman:

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion: (a) to agree that the proceedings of the States Assembly should be filmed and broadcast live on the internet and that the broadcast of each sitting should be available online to view again for a period of at least 6 months at a cost not exceeding the sums indicated on page 6 of the attached report and the addendum to the report; (b) to agree that the official media should be permitted, at their own cost, to record the proceedings of the States Assembly from the footage made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a), and to use it in news reports in accordance with rules to be established by the Privileges and Procedures Committee; (c) to agree that 3 digital display clocks should be installed in the States Chamber to indicate the length of speeches and other interventions made by Members.

The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

This proposition is not about filming ourselves; this was suggested in a proposition lodged yesterday. It is not about spending money on ourselves. This proposition really is about one thing: it is about re-engaging with the public, the public who we represent, the public who put us here in the first place. 

Filming and broadcasting our proceedings will allow us to open the doors of the States Assembly to our constituents. It will make our decisions more accessible and our communication with Islanders more effective. 

It is the responsibility of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to ensure the provision of information to the public about the work of the States. The committee has worked quickly since its appointment to investigate the feasibility and cost of installing cameras in the States Chamber to bring us in line with modern parliaments, modern democracies around the word. Not just parliaments, indeed, councils, county councils, tiny councils, councils with 9,000 constituents. 

It is now the norm filming of Assemblies. It is now expected that Assemblies will be accessible to the public through filming. What we are proposing is to stream our meetings live on the internet as well as to provide an archive of States sittings for people to access at their convenience. 

In developing this proposal, advice has been sought from the Department of Electronics and the Information Services Department, as well as from potential suppliers and other legislatures who film their meetings. Officers from the States Greffe have held initial discussions with potential third party partners who could manage the web-streaming and archiving services. If this proposition is adopted a formal tender process will be organised to select a supplier. 

During our investigations positive feedback has been received from other legislatures and councils who have said that filming and broadcasting their proceedings has led to better engagement with the public and improved transparency. As I said before, it is not just parliaments. You think of small parliaments like Gibraltar, Bahamas, Barbados, Malta, Iceland and town councils now all over the United Kingdom, it is significant throughout the world. 

The committee has previously used filming as a means of connecting with the general public. During the 2014 election campaign hustings meetings were filmed and broadcast online by the Vote.je website receiving, amazingly, some 11,000 hits in all which is much more than quite honestly most of us anticipated. 

The committee believes that the filming of the States Assembly will be of equal interest or even more interest to people in Jersey and indeed elsewhere. We have received positive feedback too from social media, comments on Facebook and Twitter, for example. Streaming our meetings online is an efficient and effective way of improving the transparency of this Assembly and re-engaging with the people that we represent. 

Details of the proposal: we propose to introduce 5 high-definition cameras in the Chamber which will be operated manually by a member of staff from the States Greffe. Four of the cameras will be positioned to cover our seating areas and a further camera will focus on the Presiding Officer and Greffier seats. The cameras are small and unobtrusive and will be installed sensitively to take account of the historic nature of the Chamber. 

When an individual speaks, the relevant camera will focus on the person who is speaking and the operator will zoom in on the speaker. The film and sound will be fed directly through a dedicated high-speed line to an outsourced provider and will then be visible live on a dedicated page of the States Assembly website. Streaming will be at a suitable resolution to allow it to be viewed by any user with a standard broadband connection. 

After each sitting, once the live broadcast is finished, the film of the proceedings will be available for at least 6 months in an online archive available via again the States Assembly website. Each film will have a basic index attached that will link to individual debates and other parts of the proceedings so that viewers can easily find that part of the meeting that interests them. 

In addition, links to the footage of debates will be able to be sent out via the States Assembly Twitter feed. The archive will be hosted and managed by a third party supplier who will be selected through an open procurement process. 

Paragraph (b) of the proposition proposes that footage will also be made available to broadcasters at their own costs for use in news programmes. This means that broadcasters will be able to provide improved coverage of States sittings. Discussions have already taken place with Channel TV and the BBC who are both keen to improve their coverage of States proceedings through the use of film to replace the current audio-only output. 

The BBC is also hopeful that some footage may be used nationally, either on the Democracy Live website or on the BBC parliamentary channel. The committee will be drawing up rules for broadcasters to ensure that footage provided is only used for genuine news and current affairs coverage of the Assembly. 

Local broadcasters have indicated they would welcome such rules to ensure that there are agreed parameters for everyone about the use of the footage. 

There is some speculation that the introduction of cameras could encourage some Members to speak more frequently or to play to an outside audience. I can recall similar concerns were expressed in the mid-1980s when the radio was first allowed to broadcast the proceedings in the Assembly and in other parliaments, such as the House of Commons, when cameras were first introduced. 

But in both cases any potential disadvantages were greatly outweighed by the benefits of opening up legislatures to a wider audience. Although in theory some Members may initially change their behaviour when cameras are introduced, in practice Members will almost certainly become oblivious to the cameras within a very short time. 

Following feedback from Members at the presentation we held a few weeks ago, we have lodged an amendment to our proposition to ensure that the costs are limited to those outlined in the accompanying report and addendum. 

The equipment costs for the filming and web-streaming could be funded in one of 2 ways. The initial equipment costs are, with some suppliers, paid for as an initial capital payment, whereas other suppliers provide the equipment as part of an overall annual contract which covers the leasing of the equipment and the running costs of the web-streaming. The decision on the most cost-effective option will be taken as part of the tender process. Leased equipment options are available for less than £30,000 per annum. Alternatively, if the equipment is to be purchased, the estimated cost of the initial setup would not exceed some £40,000 to £45,000. Under this option the annual running costs, including the need for a dedicated S.D.S.L. (Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line) and maintenance costs based on 48 meetings a year would be between £22,000 and £27,000 depending on whether the footage was kept online for 6 or 12 months. In both cases there would be a £3,500 per annum opportunity cost for staffing the equipment. 

Some Members have indicated to me, and I have heard them saying: “Now is not the right time. Spending £30,000 a year when some of our staff are to be made redundant is not appropriate.” I have to say that the spending on this project would not make one iota of difference to any of the departments of the States. We are not asking for any extra money. The modest costs will be funded by prioritising our existing resources, our existing budget. We have already made the savings which other departments have also made. The States Assembly budget has been reduced in the same way that other departments have had their budgets reduced. 

In addition to broadcasting our proceedings, we are proposing that clocks should be installed in the States Chamber showing Members the total time they have been speaking during a debate. Clocks such as this are in place in many parliaments around the world and have proved to be useful in Chambers such as the House of Lords to inform Members how long their speeches are lasting. 

We have no intention of introducing time limits on speeches. This proposal today is simply to assist Members to ensure that their speeches are concise and relevant. If this proposition is adopted, 3 clocks will be installed, one over each of the main exit doors in the Chamber. The clocks will appear on a simple flat-screen television around the size of an iPad and will show a digital clock display. It will be the Greffier’s responsibility to start, stop and reset the clocks which will be equally linked. We have received a quote in the sum of £1,748 for the supply and installation of 3 elapsed-time counters in the Chamber. We had intended to trial the operation of the clocks, but in view of the cost involved, we are proposing it should be introduced as a permanent measure, as it would be difficult to justify such an expense for a trial period. 

It was yesterday I heard the Minister for Treasury on the radio saying, when talking about the Medium-Term Financial Plan, that the States needed to become more efficient. Now, I know that he was talking about the various States departments, but of course we ourselves need to set an example and to be as efficient as we possibly can. We have no mechanisms for disciplining ourselves. We have no time limits on speeches; no time limits on debates; Back-Benchers have equal rights to spend time on propositions as Ministers; there is no priority between legislation and straightforward propositions; there are no guillotine motions. The only way of controlling ourselves is by our own self-discipline. The object of these clocks is to help us to understand how long we are speaking and how relevant, hopefully, we are being. 

This proposition as a whole is about moving the States Assembly into the 21st century. We cannot expect people to engage with the States via an audio feed and Hansard. If Members are serious about the need to communicate with Islanders and appeal to younger members of society, we must be prepared to accept the additional modest cost of filming and broadcasting our proceedings. 

As I said earlier, to provide such a facility is now the norm throughout many places in the world and is taken for granted. This is not about filming ourselves, but it is about bringing the public to us. 

I was thinking about this: there are many people who cannot come and watch our proceedings, even though we have a public gallery, because never will the disabled be able to enter the public gallery because of the design of this building. Those who cannot manage the stairs will never be able to come and engage with us as other people are able to do. 

I just wonder, if I was standing here today asking for £100,000 or £200,000 to make disabled access possible - which it is not - in that public gallery, would there be any objection whatsoever? I think probably not. 

The cost of web-streaming and of the installation of the clocks will be accommodated by making savings in other areas of the States Assembly budget. We are conscious that in coming years, the States Assembly will no doubt be required to find more savings to meet States spending targets, but we consider that this public engagement initiative is an important one that should be funded within existing resources. 

It is the Committee’s job to provide information to the public about the work of the States and to keep the public information services under review. Public engagement with local politics is difficult, but if we expect to be able to communicate with Islanders, our dialogue needs to be accessible. We must therefore consider the way in which Islanders access information in this digital age. 

The public does not have the time to digest voluminous verbatim records of States sittings. If we are going to communicate effectively, we must provide visual access to our decision-making process. This proposition provides us with an opportunity to broadcast our decisions, providing a more transparent and open parliament and re-engaging with the people we are here to represent. 

Supporting this proposition will be a commitment to transparency and openness; it will be a commitment to reconnecting with the people who put us here; it will be a commitment to keeping pace with other parliaments of significance; it will be a commitment to a vision of a modern, forward-thinking and self-confident Assembly; it will be a commitment to a belief that politics and the work that we do in this place is significant and important, and it should be captured, it should be open and not closeted. I make the proposition, Sir. [Approbation]

https://statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=CDE40149-C10F-486E-87F1-88BF36FDBFC8