Yesterday I signed up for Twitter (@parishadvocate) and today I have opened my first Blogger account. Having teenage children has never been so useful!
So what could possibly have motivated me to take these steps. My social life was full enough already and work demands (mortgage, university fees and other "normal" expenses are certainly taking their toll.... as for everyone else in middle Jersey) keep me very busy, thank you!
The answer is simple... Last week the States agreed to hold a referendum on the future make up of the States Assembly. For anyone who has been asleep, this came after an Electoral Commission was set up to come up with reform proposals, which it did after two rounds of consultation. All residents should have received a summary of recommendations through their letterbox but there is a full document available here. The die is cast and we must all participate in discussing the issues before referendum day on April 24th.
Essentially there are two choices for reform. In both, the island will be divided into 6 large electoral districts. There will be 42 elected representatives in either option.
In option A each district will elect 7 members. There will be no specific parish representative.
In option B each district will elect 5 members.
In addition each Parish will elect 1 constable who will be a member of the States. Guaranteed Parish representation will therefore be maintained.
As my profile shows (and let's get something straight... I am a real 'ordinary' Jersey resident but someone who does not feel comfortable putting their own identity out on the web. I may have time to explain why on a future occasion but it's not really important now) I have a great deal of experience in the parish honorary system. I have seen how quietly and efficiently it works on behalf of islanders.
For example, in these difficult financial times when GST has gone up, parking charges have gone up, planning fees etc etc, how many parishes have put up their parish rates? Direct annual accountability to the public keeps parish spending on track.
As soon as the parishes lose control of a function it seems to suddenly cost more. The cost of welfare has spiralled since it was taken over by the States. The next time extra funds are needed by the Council of Ministers, what will stop a proposition to change the parish rate law to vary the parameters of the Island Wide Rate? More and more often, the States want parishes to assume responsibility for service provision. This means the States can achieve their efficiency savings by relying more on the parishes. Just consider the recent health consultation which envisaged many health initiatives being delivered in the parishes. There is nothing wrong with that - it may well be a better option but if this is to be the case, the Parishes must have a voice in these decisions through direct representation in the debates.
There is a lot of misinformation about the honorary system being bandied about by people who quite obviously know little about what it really means. Let's open the discussion here and hopefully set a few things straight. I'm up for a debate but let's keep it civil please.
Option B is the only choice if you value the tried and tested parish honorary system.
What everyone seems to have missed is that the reduction from 49 to 42 members will leave us very short of people to do scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, as I understand it, the electoral commission thinks that it is time to rescind the Troy Rule. Now even Clothier considered that, in the absence of political parties, the executive should be in the minority.
Whilst the reduction in members sounds good, the lack of an effective scrutiny function effectively means that, if the Troy Rule is rescinded, there could well be a self perpetuating dictatorship.
The reforms already effected mean that the total number of States Members will be 49 at the next election. Before we pluck a number like 42 out of the air, we should should consider what tasks we require the States Members to undertake.
Anyone done that?
Thank you for your comment.
DeleteSince reading it, I have been doing a bit of scrutinising myself and have reread section 4 of the Electoral Commission's final report which deals with the points you raise. I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the EC believe that the Troy Rule should be abolished. They clearly state that this is outside of their terms of reference (4.10 page 19).
Likewise the EC seems to have done sufficient work on the question of numbers to be confident in their recommendation to reduce to 42. I listened as much of the debate last week as work commitments would allow and remember someone (can't remember who, I'm afraid) commenting to the effect that deciding the number of members available to do the tasks would naturally streamline the processes. Certainly a section of the public thinks that "the work expands to occupy the number of states members there are to do it" and unfortunately seeing that there are some members who carry out no official function whatsoever seems to endorse this. As a taxpayer I find it outrageous that these people can be eligible for remuneration whilst effectively doing only what they please.
I understand your concerns about scrutiny but from an outside perspective the Exec/Scrutiny relationship has often been more like a bitter divorce than a critical friendship. There have been some excellent results but also in the past some blatant attempts to promote alternative policy and to use scrutiny for political purposes. In my humble view our government, was better when it was truly concensual and the current method of operation is not allowing that to work. That is where major changes are necessary by the machinery of government review mentioned in the EC report. I don't believe the reduction in numbers will harm or limit that, rather it will set the parameters for that reform
No States Member is "doing only what they please". There are these things called elections, in which the people give consent for candidates to seek out their manifesto pledges. If a States Member stood on a platform of not being a minister or heavily involved in scrutiny, but wanted to focus on other aspects in the job, (for example taking on constituents cases, which no one ever seems to acknowledge is an unquantifiable part of their job) then it is because the public has given their consent by voting for them and it is neither your nor my place to moan about having to pay for that. It's called democracy.
Delete
DeleteI actually said they were "effectively" doing as they please and I stand by that. Every States Member has a responsibility to their constituents and the link is particularly strong amongst Deputies and Constables - Senators, by virtue of being elected on an Island-wide mandate are often one step removed from individual constituent issues. Constituency work is not an option, it is an essential. I am speaking about work in the Assembly - and there is no disputing the fact that if a Member does not have an official responsibility within the Assembly, they are able to pick and choose exactly what and how much they do.