Tight votes just emphasise splits in States
THIS States is divided. Time and again decisions are being made by the odd vote here and there, or even being approved with a minority of the States members' backing.
THIS States is divided. Time and again decisions are being made by the odd vote here and there, or even being approved with a minority of the States members' backing.
The Suez waste plant is the most dramatic, or expensive, example of that – one vote in it, with five members who would have voted in its favour but who, for different reasons, including legal advice, abstained.
Some will argue that this is democracy – and it is.
The problem comes with the message it sends out to the community, to critics, to contractors. And how do you create coherent policy on the back of it?
With the waste situation, that is amplified by supporting an amendment that wipes out a policy without given written direction on what it is to be replaced with – Public Services is now left to gauge the mood of the debate.
It then has to go back to the States with a report when all those who abstained are again able to vote.
At the same meeting that knife-edge decision was taken, the concept of a second reading for amended reports was raised, an idea that has found favour with at least a couple of ministers.
And what no one has dared mention, perhaps for fear of being called undemocratic, is the possibility of requiring a two-thirds majority for some decisions. How would that be for showing unity?
But there are tools already in place for those who feel a clear decision has not been made.
A member could bring back a requete to have the issue discussed all over again.
A department that felt the full implications were not known – and this is especially true of the spur-of-the-moment amendments that are placed during debate – could bring another report, or even ask for an adjournment until the next meeting.
But it is a tough political judgement call.
There is a provision, and no one spoken to has recent knowledge of it being used,
for the presiding officer to act.
If a proposition is passed by fewer than two-thirds of members present, he or she has the discretion to declare the resolution ineffective, and put the matter back to the States, whereupon a simple majority decision is needed.
This is much like the process governing amendments to the Reform Law, the island's 'constitution'. Here, if two-thirds of those voting is not reached someone can request the issue be deferred and brought back within three months – at which point only a simple majority is needed.
The States Assembly and Constitution Committee last week heard Public service minister Deputy Bernard Flouquet's backing for second readings.
He feels the public only begins to engage once a decision has been made – a fair point in the circumstances.
A second reading could solve this, but then again, others will argue that the problem with public engagement should be tackled in different ways – and is that not after all what a Green Paper is all about?
Sacc will discuss this again at its next meeting.
And if you are in any doubt about the States 'form' this term
on tight votes you do not need to trawl the voting records – just ask Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher.
He can recall five instances when there was one vote in it and he backed the winning side.
'It just shows that the States is split down the middle when you get to critical votes,' said Deputy Kuttelwascher.
Sacc member Matt Fallaize said that it was not rare for larger minorities to have beaten smaller ones.
His amendment on the fundamental spending review which tried to block too much power being centralised lost by 21 votes to 19 with abstentions and absentees.
The amendment to pay for the airport firefighters' inquiry was another narrow vote in recent times.
'The rules clearly say to carry you need a majority of those present and voting. Those who are op-
posed to that need to propose a change to the rules if that's what they feel,' said Deputy Fallaize.
He did not think there was any other way of organising voting.
'You can't require two-thirds. How do you decide which reports need a half and which two-thirds?'
Some will say it is a minefield. What happens when the two-thirds rule is not met? Do you keep having extra rounds of voting until enough people have left the building?
Or maybe, like with the Reform Law, you simply bring it back within three months at which point you just need more than a half of those entitles to vote.
What is clear is that when the States makes a tight decision, no one can be confident it will remain in place, or that the policy decision that flows from it will carry members.
Tight votes can stifle decision-making in a time when, especially with waste, quick and clear decision are precisely what is needed.
