UK leaves, PM leaves … is it also time for our Bailiff to go?

Monday 27 June 2016

Tomorrow States Members will vote on whether the Island's chief judge should remain as the 'Speaker' of our Assembly - and a survey of States Members by Bailiwick Express shows the future of his dual role hangs in the balance.

Yet our canvassing also shows the vast majority of politicians seem unwilling to tell the public where they stand on the issue, perhaps a contradictory stance at a time when most of them are talking of more openness and accountability.

The debate over the Bailiff’s dual role has been going on for decades and voters might find it surprising the majority of States Members have not already formed an opinion, or if they have, they are not willing to go on the record but instead appear willing to make a major constitutional decision based on two or three hours’ worth of debate.

The Bailiff is both the President of the States – and so chairs debates - and the Island’s top judge. St Brelade Deputy Montfort Tadier thinks this is undemocratic and tomorrow will ask Members to scrap the dual role, leaving the Bailiff as judge but appointing an elected ‘Speaker’ from the Deputies, Senators and Constables. He’d like this done by 2018.

His views are backed by at least two independent reports into the machinery of government: the Clothier Report of 2000 and the Carswell Report, published a decade later. Since then there have been numerous attempts to make the changes, but none successful. The most recent was by St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft in December 2013.

Among those willing to go on record to support Deputy Tadier is St Saviour No 1 Deputy Peter McLinton and St Helier Deputy Sam Mezec. When asked by BE,  Deputy McLinton said: “The States must have an elected member as a 'Speaker' in my opinion” while Deputy Mezec replied: “I’ll be voting pour as it was a commitment that I made in both of my election manifestos.”

The reply from Deputy McLinton’s fellow St Saviour representative Deputy Kevin Lewis, was more cryptic: “I will be speaking on this debate as I have very strong views however I will be keeping my powder dry until the debate.”

Senator Paul Routier seems to be wavering: “I voted against [splitting the post] last time however depending on the debate I may change. I am not trying to avoid your question. I am undecided at this moment.”

Members against the proposition are more willing to nail their colours to the mast. They include former Bailiff Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, St Lawrence Deputy John Le Fondre, St John Constable Chris Taylor, and St Clement Deputy Simon Bree, who said: “For a whole range of reasons I shall be voting against this proposition.”

Others may have made up their minds but are not willing to share. Trinity Constable Philip Le Sueur replied: “I don't think it is appropriate for me to share my thoughts with you, before the debate in the Assembly.”

St Brelade No 1 Deputy, Murray Norton’s reply raises a number of interesting questions: “Like many I suspect, listening to the debate in the Assembly is important and usually how we are expected to decide on any proposition. To short cut the democratic process by simply voting through media enquires would certainly speed up the workings of the Assembly, but would also, I fear, not be the right and proper way to run things. I'm sure you can see my point and appreciate that giving the media my vote, a week in advance of the debate would be highly presumptive of me. I'm surprised you'd expect me to.”

Grouville Constable John Le Maistre’s reply is similar: “My final decision as to which way to vote will be taken at the end of the debate. Some Members may well have made up their minds beforehand and may even have had their position on the matter stated in their manifesto. That is a matter for them.”

St Ouen Deputy Richard Renouf at least seems to have given the issue some consideration: “Still reading and considering. The principle is quite easy to accept if we were starting afresh but is it wise to cast off what we have when we have no clear idea what we would put in its place and the costs of a new set-up?”

It’s the job of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to ensure the smooth running of the States. In their comments issued to States Members ahead of tomorrow’s debate they state: “PPC does not make a recommendation one way or another as to how States Members should vote on this issue, because the Committee members themselves are not unanimous in their views.” There are five members: Senator Philip Ozouf, Constable Chris Taylor, Deputies Judy Martin, Sam Mezec, and Simon Bree.

On Thursday UK citizens voted to end a 40 year relationship with the EU. Tomorrow, will States members vote in favour of ending a realtionship that has been in place for a lot longer?

* 29 Members chose to take part in the BE survey.