An unwelcome distraction

DEPUTY Michelle Le Clerc is worried that behaviour in the States' chamber during debates is deteriorating. She's probably right but at the same time I don't think that concern should be overstated. What is needed is a bit of balance.

There needs to be some realism over the fact that deputies are never going to sit through hour after hour of debate in totally rapt, respectful attention to every word their colleagues utter.

At the same time it just feels wrong when an elected representative is on their feet and you can hear a general murmur of multiple conversations going on in the chamber. Equally disrespectful is the sight of half the members being more focused on their 'devices' than they are on the debate itself.

I will expand on both of those issues shortly but first, a confession. I'm not as pure as the driven snow. I certainly don't seek internet connectivity during debates but I do make – and always have made – more than the odd aside to my neighbours.

That happens in every parliament and I don't think there is anything wrong with it. In fact if those occasional remarks are in reaction to what is being said by the member speaking then it is proof positive of engagement with the debate rather than the opposite.

So where is the dividing line? It's hard to put into words but it's very obvious when you are there. You can just tell when lots of deputies aren't focusing on what is being said by the person on their feet. Not only does the hum of members muttering get louder but it's also unrelated to the official oratory.

There is a palpable difference between audible asides prompted by what's said in debate and just general chatting.

I think there is definitely more of the latter than there used to be and I agree with Deputy Le Clerc that it is simply unacceptable. At the same time I really doubt that expecting endless hours of complete engagement is a practical response, particularly with the proverbial shortness of modern attention spans.

So what is the answer? Very simple. Deputies should get out a bit more. Out of the chamber I mean.

I really am struck by how seldom members of the current Assembly step outside of the debating chamber to stretch their legs, drink a plastic cup of vile, dispensing machine coffee or exchange a few pleasantries with their colleagues. It's as if they feel it's some sort of sin to leave the room while the States are in session and as a result, many of them inevitably end up behaving in a somewhat disrespectful manner even if that's not their intention.

It's true that at times too many members left the room at the same time. There were even occasions when the presiding officer had to point out that if many more went out, the session would no longer be quorate. From memory these unfortunate blips tended to have a close correlation with the speeches of a particular former St Peter Port deputy. That was unacceptable, if understandable, but it was the exception rather than the norm. Overall I definitely think the culture of odd breaks from the chamber was healthier than today's 'stay in your seat unless you need a pee' approach to politics and led to a better behaved assembly.

Now on to the modern plague of 'devices'.

Why the dual standards? Very simple. No one can really see what you are doing on a computer so you get the benefit of the doubt that it just might be related in some way to the debate which is going on. Call me a cynic but I suspect such 11th hour research is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Is it a problem that so many people are focused on screens during debates? I suspect people's answers may vary depending on their own level of addiction to the internet. To me it matters very much indeed because it just seems supremely disrespectful to those participating in debate. Just as it's dangerous to drive while using a mobile phone because your attention is divided, so you can't possibly hear a speaker properly while concentrating on an iPad or laptop.

My solution? Ban the things from the chamber altogether. If you need to check some facts or do a bit of research then pick up your tablet and go out to the members' room or library, do that investigation, and then come back in.

The only people who couldn't really do that are presidents who need to stay in the chamber throughout a debate in order to be able to reply at the end of it. I know it will be said that they need 'connectivity' in order to be fed information by their senior civil servants. I think there are three possible solutions:

1. Make an exception for presidents presenting policy letters.

2. Go back to the system of allowing a civil servant to sit behind their president during major debates. This was healthier. It was transparent and while they may have passed notes to the politicians on issues of fact you at least knew the summing-up speech was the president's own words and thoughts – not them simply reading an officer pre-prepared text off a screen.

3. Presidents being sufficiently across their briefs that they don't need propping up in this way.

I don't care which solution is chosen but I am convinced that as long as the use of computers and other such devices within the chamber remains ubiquitous then proper attention to debate will remain elusive.