Skip to main content

Machinery of Government: review by Privileges and Procedures Committee.

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: REVIEW BY PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Lodged au Greffe on 29th November 2011 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: A  P.187

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee –

  1. to undertake a review of the machinery of government in Jersey in order  to  identify  a  more  inclusive  system  which  enables  greater numbers  of  elected  members  to  participate  in  executive  decision- making; and
  2. to bring forward for approval proposals arising from this review for debate during 2012.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

This proposition is brought early in the new Assembly for several reasons.

Firstly, being relatively soon after elections, members should still be able to recall the public's views on our present system and their own pledges in response.

Secondly,  Ministers  and  Panels  have  only  just  been  appointed.  I  believe  it  only courteous to bring this proposition before they have fully settled in and made long- term plans.

Thirdly, the window of opportunity for change is closing (some members are already becoming  resigned  to  business  as  usual'),  and  I  believe  if  we  do  not  seize  the moment, it could easily be 3 years before another opportunity presents itself.

This proposition is brought, not because of any lack of confidence in the PPC – it has not yet started its work – but out of regard for the problems it will surely face. Neither should it be construed as a lack of confidence in the new approach adopted by our new Chief Minister, which is most welcome. This Proposition is designed to complement his efforts.

I recall my own time on PPC (2005 – 2008) and how frustrating it was trying to achieve progress. We employed MORI to canvass public opinion. Some of the public wanted to remove the Connétable s; others wanted them to remain. Some wanted to reduce the number of States members – only not by reducing the Island-wide mandate or their local representation in the form of Deputies. The ensuing States debates were a nightmare, seemingly taking forever to ultimately get nowhere.

I am advised similar problems beset the more recent PPC during the last 3 years.

It  therefore  seems  to  me  that,  rather  than  let  PPC –  amongst  its  wide  range  of responsibilities – laboriously work up proposals, only for this Assembly to turn them down yet again, it would be better to give the Committee a steer, whereby the goal is identified and only the means of achieving it remains to be resolved.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Proposition concerns the machinery of government and  is  separate  from,  and  not  to  be  confused  with,  the  Commission's  work  on composition of the States, constituencies, etc.

Mindful  that  a  report  and  proposition  are  taken  as  a  whole,  I  believe  some identification of the issue and its possible remedies are in order. First, the problem –

Ministerial government is perceived by many not to be working. The quicker decisions and saving of money we were promised at its introduction have not materialised, and the respect members had for each other has greatly diminished from the days of Committee government. Members are now permanently on one side' or the other, and the  result  has  been  entrenchment  and  polarisation,  accompanied  by  a  degree  of animosity.

Despite the huge effort put in by Panel members, Scrutiny has become largely a waste of time and resources. Indeed, it has deteriorated to the extent it is now proving difficult to find members willing to serve on it. The situation has become so dire some valued members have even decided not to seek re-election to the States.

Page - 3

P.187/2011

The remedy will require fundamental changes. Removing one or 2 Senators or fiddling with minor matters such as the length of speeches, number of questions, etc. will achieve nothing. The increasing number of questions is not, as some have suggested, because members have nothing better to do – it is because the present system excludes the vast majority of members from decision-making – and therefore the information behind  those  decisions.  Questions  are  very  often the  only  way  now  of  obtaining accurate information and holding Ministers to account.

We  have  to  amend  our  machinery  of  government  in  a  way  that  makes  it  more inclusive. I have in mind increasing the number of Assistant Ministers to between 3 and 5  (depending  on  each  ministry's  workload),  with  Ministers  having  to  have regard to their Assistant Ministers' opinions when making decisions. To complement this, and in recognition of the greater inclusiveness outlined above, Scrutiny would need consequential revision. My view is that the Panels could be reduced to one, larger, Panel – with Sub-Panels created to address matters as they arise.

I  realise  that such  far-reaching  changes  would  require  changes  to  legislation  and consequential law drafting time. At this point I am not asking the PPC to prepare changes down to the last detail ready to be implemented immediately on a vote – rather I am seeking an in principle' proposition from them in due course which, if adopted, would then proceed to law drafting for future implementation; hopefully in 2013, so it may bed in' before the new Assembly of 2014 takes over.

I hope members can put aside any feelings they may have in relation to present positions held, and act in the best interests of Jersey whilst the change called for by the public and offered by so many candidates during canvassing is still fresh in their minds.

The alternative is bleak. We can either act now and make an orderly transition to a better process, or face the prospect of the formation of an opposition party whose sole purpose would be relentless attacks on the Council of Ministers. The worst case scenario would be public unrest and the UK government coming in to take over our administration. There truly is no time to lose.

Financial and manpower implications

There will inevitably be some resource implications arising from this review, and there may be a need for additional officer support, but I believe at this stage that the cost of the review can be met from the existing budget of the States Assembly.