In 2018, Jersey saw the launch and then abandonment of what could have been a unique official attempt to define formally the role of the jurisdiction’s parliamentarians.
represent, defend and promote the interests of the people of Jersey, particularly their parishioners and constituents;
play an active and constructive role in the governance of the Island, whether as Ministers, Scrutiny Panel members, or in other positions, ensuring that the States Assembly functions effectively and efficiently as the Island’s legislature and gives voice to the diverse interests of people in Jersey;
initiate, seek to amend and review legislation so as to help maintain a continually relevant and appropriate body of Jersey law;
establish and maintain a range of contacts throughout the Island, and proper knowledge of its characteristics, so as to identify and understand issues affecting Jersey, contribute to debates and other Assembly proceedings on those issues, and, wherever possible, further the interests of the Island (or constituency) generally;
provide appropriate assistance to individuals in Jersey, through using knowledge of Jersey’s government institutions, to progress and where possible help resolve their problems;
undertake these duties with particular regard to the most vulnerable members of the community, including the Island’s children and other people for whom the States of Jersey has a duty of care; and
be ambassadors for the Bailiwick of Jersey, its people, and for the States Assembly in all that they do.
Child abuse response
These duties were set out in response to a recommendation of the inquiry into historic child abuse in Jersey, which reported in July 2017. It had concluded that there had been a failure in the corporate parenting of looked-after children by the States of Jersey (a term which encompasses both the government and legislature in Jersey) and that States members’ duties as corporate parents ought to be reflected in their oath of office. “The symbolism of this would”, the report said, “be a very powerful demonstration of the commitment to move on from the failures of the past”.
The concept of corporate parenting is not recognised in Jersey law.
There are two oaths of office, one for senators (elected Island-wide) and deputies (akin to constituency representatives), and one, written in French and dating back to 1771, for the Connétables (the civic leaders of each parish).
Questions were raised about whether other vulnerable groups should also be mentioned in the oaths.
Senators and deputies are required to swear that they “will fulfil all the duties imposed upon you by virtue of the said office”. The Connétables are similarly required to swear that they will undertake the duties or responsibilities (‘la charge’) of their office.
Given this, and given the difficulties of incorporating language about corporate parenting into the relevant oaths, the Privileges and Procedure Committee therefore agreed that a simpler way of meeting the spirit of the Care Inquiry’s recommendation would be to set out the duties of States members in a draft proposition and to invite the Assembly to debate and agree those duties.
The list of duties was prepared with an eye to similar attempts to define parliamentarians’ responsibilities in other jurisdictions, particularly in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The proposition expressed the hope that having a published set of responsibilities would help the public understand what States members do and increase accountability.
Post-election reversal
Jersey’s general election took place in June 2018 and the newly-appointed Privileges and Procedures Committee withdrew the proposition in September 2018, before it was debated.
No reason was given for this decision, but the absence of other examples of legislatures agreeing on a job description for parliamentarians, acknowledged in the report accompanying the proposition, may well have been decisive.
Jersey’s incoming Council of Ministers established a children’s pledge for States members to sign, and this is now being seen as a way of implementing the Care Inquiry recommendation.
Defining parliamentarians’ role
This episode demonstrates the continuing difficulty of achieving formal agreement on the roles and responsibilities of parliamentarians.
Although each of the duties in the list set out in the proposition captures an aspect of a parliamentarian’s role, there are concerns that giving formal status to the full list might constrain parliamentarians from undertaking the role as they see fit.
Another issue, particularly salient in Jersey where the support provided to parliamentarians is very limited, is whether Members can reasonably discharge all of these duties.
However, it is unlikely that this issue will go away, either in Jersey or elsewhere, and when the matter next arises there is at least a draft proposition which can be taken down from the shelf and considered afresh.
In the run-up to the UK’s exit from the EU on 29 March 2019 we will be tracking the progress made by government and Parliament in preparing the statute book for exit day. Our analysis draws on parliamentary data and our own Statutory Instrument Tracker which we built several years ago to support our research on delegated legislation.
A government defeat on May’s Brexit deal tonight will be a historic failure of process
When an executive has negotiated a treaty that it can’t get through its legislature at the first attempt, as is probable in today’s ‘meaningful vote’, something in the process has gone wrong. If Parliament is going to get a bigger role in treaty-making, the experience of the Article 50 process could and should be taken as an opportunity to learn lessons.
Six ways the ‘meaningful vote’ is noteworthy: The Withdrawal Agreement & Parliament’s role in treaty-making
If the result of the ‘meaningful vote’ - whenever it is held - is that no UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement enters into force, it could be near-unique in 170 years of UK treaty-making. But if the Withdrawal Agreement goes through, its parliamentary process will still be unusual: it could be the UK treaty with the most parliamentary decision-making involvement ever.
The DCMS Committee, Facebook and parliamentary powers and privilege
For its ‘fake news’ inquiry the House of Commons DCMS Committee has reportedly acquired papers related to a US court case involving Facebook. Andrew Kennon, former Commons Clerk of Committees, says the incident shows how the House’s powers to obtain evidence do work, but that it might also weaken the case for Parliament’s necessary powers in the long term.
Parliamentary consent to treaty ratifications: another procedure strained by Brexit?
Attention is focused on the ‘meaningful vote’ on the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, but the Agreement will also be subject to a parliamentary ratification consent procedure, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, notable mainly for not involving a vote.
