Sacc look to combat repetitive speeches in States debates

The States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee, which will come up with recommendations for the States’ approval, discussed matters such as the repetition of opinions during speeches, the re-emphasis of points made by other members and restrictions on the late submission of amendments at last week’s committee meeting.

Sacc president Peter Roffey said that repetition could not be helped in some cases but there were deputies ‘who regularly repeat the same thing more than once’.

However, he agreed that any changes to the procedures would be difficult to police.

‘People would get a bit shirty if the presiding officer was constantly interjecting.’

According to rule 24.2, an amendment to a policy letter must be submitted no later than seven week days before the start of the States meeting it will be debated at, unless the amendment in question has no financial or timescale implications.

However, these rules can be suspended if the majority of deputies agree and Deputy Roffey was concerned by the frequency of this happening.

‘The way this Assembly suspends the rules makes a mockery of the rules,’ he said, adding that he had ‘some sympathy for a two-thirds [approval] requirement’ instead.

He believed this would encourage States members to submit amendments earlier and give colleagues more time to consider propositions with long-term implications.

Committee member Mark Dorey said the seven-day rule ‘is too restrictive’ but that procedures were needed to guard against rushed or rash decisions.

Deputy Dorey said there had been occasions where amendments submitted after the deadline ‘had rescued the States from a mess’.

If the matter was that serious, Deputy Roffey believed the proposer would have no trouble attracting the approval of two-thirds of the House.

New committee member Neil Inder questioned whether this requirement would place too much emphasis on the popularity of the proposer.

Deputy Dorey said the situation was nuanced by the nature of the debate.

Highlighting a number of late amendments to the IDP, he said the wider subject matter ‘had been given adequate clearance’ and that there are things that ‘just become apparent during debate’.

Deputy Roffey agreed with this, saying there were occasions when he was grateful for late interventions.

One of the most significant recent amendments that required a suspension of the rules was Deputy Shane Langlois’ amendment to future private college funding in September, which replaced

Education’s propositions and became substantive.