Speaking during the swearing-in ceremony in the Royal Court of the 49 new Members, Sir William Bailhache said that continued discussion in the Chamber over the historic role was unhelpful and ‘damages’ both the Bailiff’s position as civic head of the Island and the reputation of the States.
The speech drew criticism from some Members, with Deputy Montfort Tadier describing it in a tweet as an ‘outrageous and egregious breach of protocol’ and Reform Jersey chairman Senator Sam Mezéc stating it was ‘inappropriate’.
Last November politicians agreed to hold a referendum on whether the dual role of the Bailiff – who acts as the Island’s top judge and President of the States – should be split.
The States is due to debate a proposition by the Privileges and Procedures Committee on 26 June which proposes that the referendum be held on 20 October and that the question which should be put to voters in a ‘yes or no’ format should be: ‘Should the Bailiff as President of the States Assembly be replaced by a Speaker elected by States Members?’
During his speech Sir William said the Bailiff’s role had been the subject of States debate on several occasions in the past three years.
‘It has attracted passionate speeches on both sides of the argument,’ he added.
‘I am sure you will forgive me for saying that the continued debate – in other words, decisions being taken which do not put the debate to bed – have to my mind been unhelpful, and this is for two reasons.
‘First of all, that debate has an inhibiting effect on the Presiding Officer. I often think there is much more that could be contributed, respecting of course democratic principles in doing so.
‘Secondly, it is for Members to decide if they think it is productive to debate the same issue over and over again, but for my part, I would hope that we can avoid that. Such a course of action damages both the Bailiff’s position as civic head of the Island and the reputation of the States and repeated debates increase the damage.’
He added that he ‘very much hope[s]’ that whatever comes out of the debate there will still be the referendum.
‘I say that not because I have any wish for the Bailiff to be removed from the States, but because it is frankly time the issue was put to bed,’ he said.
‘If the outcome is that the Bailiff leaves the States, then so be it. If the outcome is that the Bailiff should stay in the States then those who don’t like it should, if I may say so with the greatest respect, learn to live with it.’
Senator Mezéc criticised Sir William for making the comments in front of a ‘captive audience’.
‘The Bailiff actually spoke in a partisan way in support of an upcoming debate,’ Senator Mézec said. ‘He is meant to facilitate a debate and be impartial.
‘He has been partial. He did so in the swearing-in ceremony where none of us are able to intervene. If he did it in the Chamber there are rules where we can intervene but we can’t do that in court.
‘It is totally inappropriate. The fact that he didn’t realise that it was inappropriate shows that it is important to have a separation of powers.’
In his tweet, Deputy Tadier said: ‘Outrageous and egregious breach of protocol with a highly political speech from the Bailiff at today’s swearing in, on the dual role. Will he be telling us how to vote on everything? Exactly why change is necessary.’
