Composition of the States: implementation of remaining Clothier reforms – referendum.

STATES OF JERSEY

COMPOSITION OF THE STATES: IMPLEMENTATION OF REMAINING CLOTHIER REFORMS – REFERENDUM

Lodged au Greffe on 18th January 2011 by Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: E  P.3

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to agree  that  a  referendum  in accordance  with  the  Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 should be held to run in tandem with the 2011 Election Day on the implementation of the following package of 6 key points  of  reform  based  on  recommendations  in  the  Report  of  the Review  Panel  on  the  Machinery  of  Government  in  Jersey,  dated December 2000, chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier;
2. to agree that the text of the question should be –

"Do you agree that the States Assembly should be reformed prior to  the  next  Election  Day  after  the  2011  Election  Day  to incorporate the following points:

• The Bailiff should cease to act as President of the States or to take any political part in the Island's government and the States should elect their own Speaker, who should be a non- States Member;
• The office of Senator should be abolished;
• Connétable s should cease to be ex-officio Members of the States;
• All Members of the States to enjoy the same title, Member of the States of Jersey' (MSJ) (as recommended in Clothier) or States Members (SMs) and serve a uniform 4 year term;
• There should be an Assembly of between 42 – 44 Members;
• An  independent  Electoral  Commission  to  re-assign  the 42 – 44 seats between the 12 Parishes.

YES   NO   ";

3. to request the Chief Minister to take the necessary steps to implement the referendum.

DEPUTY S. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

Though I am quite sure that there cannot be a single Member of the States who is not very familiar with the proposals outlined in the Clothier Report (2000), I attach a copy of it in the Appendix to this Report. I therefore feel that there is no need repeat it here. Instead I will very briefly outline why I feel this referendum is the way forward.

As a direct result of current moves to try and reverse decisions on the constitution of the States taken last October, I bring this proposal for a referendum on implementing what I consider to be the 6 remaining key recommendations from the Clothier Report. I believe that it is the only way that we, the Government of Jersey, will ever bring a conclusion to the seemingly never-ending saga of piecemeal attempts to reform.

It also hardly needs to be said again that the cause of this unsatisfactory situation has been entirely  down to the  inability  of  successive  Assemblies  to  put  aside  vested interest and show the wisdom to adopt the Clothier recommendations – this being, after  all,  the  most  thorough  examination  of  our  machinery  of  government  ever undertaken. The way to put an end to this once and for all is to let the public decide. These 6 questions, in my opinion, get to the real gist of Clothier's vision of the reforms needed within the States Assembly.

Contrary  to  the  view  often  put  across  by  some  Members,  most  Islanders  are disillusioned with the States' inability to enact reform. This feeling has only been reinforced by attempts set to be heard during the debate of 18th January 2011 to try and overturn the decision we made, by a significant majority, to remove 4 Senatorial posts just 4 months ago. How many times do we hear Members, in particular the Executive, proclaiming that back-bencher' propositions are superfluous and a waste of debating' time? Yet we will soon witness them doing this very thing. It is time we put an end to these endless debates on our constitution.

Consequently, it is the right time we finally took this issue of reform out of the hands of those with a vested interest, whatever their political views, and put it in the hands of the electorate. Not only is this the only way we that will ever get an overwhelming opinion on whether to adopt genuine reform or reject it, it is also the only way we will ever get a guide' that will move the decision away from politicians who cannot, by nature of our different positions, have views that are not coloured by this to some degree.

Let the people decide – the people who vote for us and pay our wages. And let's commit to accepting their wishes. This really is all that needs to be said. So, while urging any Members who have not done so recently to read the Clothier Report again, I will simply outline my reasoning in identifying the 6 points that I feel should form the basis of the referendum.

I  would  hope  that  Members  will  put  aside  any  personal  views  and  support  this proposition in the spirit it is written, i.e. to put an end to the saga of debates and give a voice to the people who matter. After all, it surely makes no sense to consider asking people's opinions on Senators, yet not the Connétable s, Deputies, the number of Members or the contentious role of the Bailiff as President of the House. Supporting this proposition will do all of this.

1. The role of the Bailiff

With 5 years behind me in the States, I have observed that when it comes to any criticism of the Bailiff , too often most Members appear unable to separate the position and the obvious flaws in the current system, from the individual. This is something that must be looked at from a detached position, whatever a Member's feelings. Simply retaining something because it has a long tradition' is not a valid argument in the 21st Century. Democratic change should be paramount over tradition.

2010 saw the highly respected Lord Carswell (Report presented to the States on 6th December 2010 – R.143/2010: The Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers) reach the conclusion that the current position allowing the Bailiff to hold dual roles within Legislature  and  Judiciary  needed  to  end –  this  being  out  of  step  with  a  modern democracy. My view is that an Independent Speaker should be appointed from outside of the States rather from among elected Members. It is time we asked the Jersey public what they think!

2. Should the role of Senator be abolished?

Unfortunately, all the statistics that we so frequently hear quoted regarding what the public want' are now years out of date. There is certainly much to be said for the Island-wide mandate, now that prospective politicians have spending limits placed upon their election campaigns. Yet the fact is also true that the majority of those who have become a Senator during this period of Ministerial government do not, as a direct result, hold a Ministerial position – only 5 out of 12.

Further undermining the case for the Senatorial position remaining is that, since the 2008  elections,  we  have  2 Senators  who  have  missed  in  the  region  of  300 votes between them. In my opinion, this demonstrates quite clearly that while there can be an argument for the position itself, there is no case whatsoever for us needing 12. There is also, of course, no direct link to the tradition of there being 12 Parishes. Our tax-paying  electorate  should  be  given  the  chance  to  say  what  they  think  of  the advantages or otherwise of this role now in 2011!

3. Should the Connétable s cease to be ex-officio Members of the States?

Listening to the countless debates over my 6 years in the States, the issue of whether the Connétable s should sit in the States as ex-officio Members is one that divides people almost more than any other. In many ways, I feel that this is unfortunate because this can detract from the fact that there are excellent individual Connétable s, just as there are Senators and Deputies.

It is my firmly-held belief that the Connétable s should run their parishes only, and not be in the States as ex-officio Members by nature of their office. It is also true, as I understand it, that even under the one type of Member' Assembly recommended by Clothier, there would be nothing to prevent any Connétable also running for, and being elected to, the States. What do the public think?

4. Only one type of States Member?

There really is little to be said on this one. It comes down to whether the public hold the view that there are any benefits from us continuing with 3 types of politicians, where each has a single vote, and as we have seen, where having an Island-wide mandate is no guarantee at all of being given the important post of Minister.

Clothier proposed calling such Members MSJs' – Members of the States of Jersey'. In my personal opinion the name is almost irrelevant, but much simpler – we are States Members so why not SMs'? But this is just my feeling. MSJs' – let's ask the people!

5. An Assembly of 42–44 Members

Given all the different permutations that have been put forward over the years, if there is one thing that most Members would appear to agree on, it is that there is room for a smaller Assembly. Reducing the number of politicians by too great a margin clearly does run the risk of power being even further concentrated in the hands of the few.

I believe that too great a reduction would also be a false economy, as this could create a less effective Government, in that it would render the concept of Executive and Scrutiny unworkable. Clothier's proposal of between 42 and 44 appears to me about as great a cut as we could make.

6. An Electoral Commission should re-assign the 42–44 seats between the 12 Parishes

While Clothier makes it clear that utilising an independent Electoral Commission to examine electoral borders and re-assign seats is necessary, I believe that should any Member doubt this need, the States' consistent inability to reach agreement on this issue speaks for itself. It is undeniable that the rural Parishes have, for too long, had a disproportionate  share  of  electoral  representation.  As  a  democracy,  I  know  all Members will agree that we must ensure that the urban and the rural must be fairly balanced.

I believe that an Electoral Commission should be appointed from the UK with the mandate to take in the views of every stakeholder, e.g. the public, Parishes, States Members and the Privileges and Procedures Committee. The final recommendations, however, must be left to the Commission.

Financial and manpower implications

In his call for a referendum on reducing the number of Senators, it is to be noted that Senator Cohen's suggestion that, due to the voluntary nature of much of the work surrounding elections, the cost of a referendum would be negligible is apparently accepted as correct. While this may well be the case, given that we now identify a sum in the region of £8,500 to cover the expense of an Island-wide Senatorial campaign, it is, I feel, better to veer on the side of caution. No doubt TV, radio and the local newspaper would be very keen to assist with their resources on such an important initiative. Nevertheless, I would still suggest a figure in the region of £25,000 should be considered.

APPENDIX

Page 44 of the Report is a blank page and therefore is not reproduced here