Bailiff’s role likely to dominate States sitting

Monday 12 September 2016

It’s back to business for States members tomorrow.

And it’s likely the sitting will be dominated by them talking about themselves: who should keep them in order?

At the moment it’s the job of the Bailiff. He has two roles – the so-called speaker or President of the States – the person who’s responsible for the smooth running of sittings; and he’s the Island’s chief judge. Critics believe this is a conflict of interest and say with the exception of Guernsey you’d be hard pushed to find a similar situation anywhere else in the democratic world.

Deputy Montfort Tadier is the latest in a long line of politicians who’s trying to get the current situation changed. In his proposition he wants the Bailiff to cease being the President of the States from January 2018, and for politicians to elect a speaker from amongst their own ranks no later than the last sitting of 2017.

Two independent reports – the Clothier Report in 2000, and the Carswell Report in 2010 – have also supported separating the Bailiff’s dual role.

If the changes were introduced it’d be the job of the Privileges and Procedures Committee to implement the recommendations. In its comments ahead of the debate it says “PCC does not make a recommendation one way or another as to how States members should vote on this issue, because the Committee members are not unanimous in their views.” Senator Philip Ozouf and Deputy Sam Mezec are both on record as wanting to end the dual role, whilst Constable Chris Taylor and Deputy Simon Bree are supporters of the current set up.

The Attorney General’s comments though – whilst outwardly impartial – tacitly support keeping things as they are. He said: “The question as to whether or not the Bailiff should remain as the President of the States Assembly is, of course, a matter for the Assembly itself. However, the Law Officers provided advice the last time this issue was raised and have been asked to reconsider and update that advice.”

The main point the AG makes is that in his opinion the dual role of the Bailiff is Human Rights compatible: “In general there is no issue from a human rights perspective with the Bailiff continuing to preside in the Assembly and to sit as a judge. Any issue that may arise in an individual court case… can be addressed by the Bailiff exercising his usual discretion not to sit in such a case where, viewed objectively, he may not appear to be impartial.”