Establishment of an elected Speaker [P.47/2019]

STATES OF JERSEY

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ELECTED SPEAKER

Lodged au Greffe on 30th April 2019 by Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré

STATES GREFFE

2019  P.47

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to agree that –

1. whilst retaining the Bailiff in his role as President of the States, the States Assembly should select a Speaker from the elected members of the Assembly to be able to preside in the absence of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff ;
2. the selection and appointment of the Speaker should be the first items of business for any new States Assembly and, should the office become vacant during the term of an Assembly, be the first item of business at the next scheduled meeting of the Assembly;
3. the Speaker should be elected to serve for the duration of an Assembly term, or for the remainder of the Assembly's term if (for any reason) he or she is elected mid-term;
4. the process for electing the Speaker should follow a similar format as those for the election of the Chief Minister, Ministers and Scrutiny Panel Chairmen;
5. provision should be made for the Speaker to resign and/or be removed from office by the States Assembly;
6. the Speaker should be required to act impartially, and be seen to act impartially, when presiding over the States. Upon being elected, the Speaker would be required to resign from any membership of a political party;
7. the Speaker, while presiding at the meeting, shall have the same powers as the Bailiff when presiding at such a meeting;
8. the  role  of the  Speaker shall include the  promotion of the  States Assembly and of democracy in Jersey;
9. the  additional  resources  required  to  support  a  Speaker  should  be provided for within the current structure of the States Greffe;
10. the Privileges and Procedures Committee should bring forward all necessary  actions,  including  legislative  amendments,  to  implement these changes in time for the Assembly to select and appoint a Speaker as soon as is reasonably practicable.

SENATOR J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ

REPORT

At the time of lodging this proposition, P.31/2019, as lodged by Senator S.Y. Mézec , is proposing the removal of the Bailiff as President of the States Assembly, and is due to be debated during the States Sitting commencing 30th April 2019 ("Elected Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the States Assembly: selection and appointment").

Members will have their own views on that subject, and I do not propose to dwell on the merits or otherwise of those particular arguments in this report.

Members will know that, jointly with Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier , we instigated a working group looking into the role of the Bailiff , with a report ultimately going to PPC, but which that Committee did not feel should be laid before the Assembly.

As part of the process, the Bailiff wrote to the group, and his letter is attached in the Appendix  to  this  report,  having  previously  been  circulated  to  Members  on 21st March 2019. Members will also recall that this was discussed at the presentation to States Members held on 26th March 2019, attended by the Bailiff , and held at the Société Jersiaise.

Within the letter the Bailiff has proposed a potential compromise, which does not represent a constitutional change, would retain him as Presiding Officer, but would bring far greater clarity in addressing the perception over whether there is a conflict with the Bailiff presiding when legislation is debated by the Assembly, even though he has no vote.

In essence it would put a structure around some of the informal processes which are presently practised when legislation is being considered by the Assembly. (At present, for certain types of legislation, the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff do often choose not to preside over the Assembly, in order to avoid any perception of conflict when court cases arise under that legislation.)

Subsequent to the presentation referred to above, I have been approached by a number of Members who were supportive of the principles behind the Bailiff 's proposal, but felt that someone more senior' should facilitate their debate by the Assembly.

I have agreed to take on this role, and have also enquired as to whether this could be an amendment to P.31/2019, or whether it should be a standalone proposition, and have been advised that it should be the latter.

The principles are outlined in paragraph 19 onwards in the letter from the Bailiff in the attached Appendix.

There are certain key points to make –

1. This represents an evolutionary approach to the role, not a revolution. The principle would be that the Speaker and the Bailiff would work together to agree the mechanics of how the 2 roles would work in practice.
2. It would NOT represent a constitutional change.

3. It would resolve the perception issue regarding the Bailiff overseeing any debates involving legislation – as noted above, in practice, this is already addressed – this proposal would just regularise the matter.

I am hugely supportive of the present role of Bailiff in the Assembly. I believe we have been exceptionally well served by all of the Bailiff s I have ever had personal experience of during my political life.

The fact that the first record that we have of someone holding the position of Bailiff is in 1277 shows the huge cultural and historical impact the role has had during the centuries, and whilst not everyone will agree with style, approach or decisions made by Bailiff s in the past (or present), it is clear that the role has been pivotal in guiding the Island and its residents through hugely tumultuous times in history, and steering the course towards the Island of today, with its democratic ideals and multicultural society, whilst protecting, enhancing and nurturing its constitutional position. A key role that has not (in my opinion) been properly addressed or understood to-date is the important role the Bailiff fulfils as Guardian of the Constitution (i.e. protecting the Constitutional position of this Island against " whomsoever may seek to destroy them"1).

It seems to me therefore, that a decision to change the role should be an evolutionary approach, rather than just casting down nearly 800 years of Island history, possibly on the balance of one or 2 votes, and potentially without any recourse to the Public. Constitutional change IS important and should not be treated lightly. This proposition addresses the substance of any critical perception, but as previously noted, would NOT be a change in the Constitution of this Assembly and how it represents the Public of this Island.

This is why I have made this proposition, to give Members a choice, towards a compromise, an evolution in the role of our most ancient and historic Member.

I hope Members will understand the rationale behind this proposition, and will give it proper, and due, consideration.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications arising from the adoption of this proposition.

1 Extract from Oath of Office

APPENDIX