Use technology correctly to enhance States debate

THERE comes a point covering any States meeting when you start to question whether the Assembly is debating something or just making speeches.

One requires interaction, it could even sway minds, it's a key tenet of active democracy – the other is merely a waste of oxygen.

This States has now had time to find its feet, learn the rules and characteristics of debate – members have also had time to plug the court's Wi-Fi password into whichever portable device they have with them.

It is not uncommon to have 15 or so of the members with their eyes staring firmly at an electronic screen as a colleague stands to make what they would hope would be a telling contribution.

This is the curse of modern debate – it also is much more noticeable than last term.

For starters you don't know if they are justifiably engaged in urgent States business on their iPads or catching up on the latest top-10 listicle, or maybe upping a level on Angry Birds.

But really, it doesn't matter.

The voter expectation is that for three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon they are being represented wholeheartedly in a public forum.

Then you have the inevitable phone ringer going off, or video playing out loud, to interrupt the flow.

It wasn't that long ago that the only disturbance you had during debate was the crinkling of packets of Werther's Originals and the shuffling on seats when someone drones on too long.

Members would leave the chamber but keep an ear in on the broadcast from the adjacent room, or on the wireless if they were outside catching fresh air. They still do.

It can be a tiring business, no doubt, and breaks are needed.

But you add only a handful of names to those paying almost as much attention as the presiding officer. We really would be doomed if the Bailiff started tweeting from the top bench.

This is all the more frustrating because the rules are such that debate can be much more interactive than it ever was.

The introduction of the giveway procedure means that members can be questioned and challenged during their speech – but only if anyone else is paying attention.

Jersey has introduced live picture streaming in its chamber – if you wanted to you can watch to see how everyone is performing.

The same could happen in Guernsey, if anyone was willing to pay for it, although what appetite there would be to watch it is another question altogether.

Some believe there is grandstanding in Jersey, making speeches for the cameras.

But it brings a discipline to know that people are watching – you just have to see how well behaved Guernsey's members are when there are visitors in the public gallery compared to a quiet Thursday afternoon.

This States has also picked up another bad habit from its predecessor – the Thursday evening rush to a conclusion.

We saw it at the last meeting with the waste debate and beneficial ownership registry.

They will take a decision just before the traditional end time of 5.30pm that they can finish things by adding an extra hour.

Inevitably more people will decide to speak than indicated.

Inevitably everyone rushes.

They rush speeches, they rush decisions, minds are elsewhere. The quality of those speeches falls down a cliff.

Scrutiny of policy letters becomes almost non-existent and all because of the prospect of a Friday off (OK, members will argue they have other business to attend to all the time, the sceptic would ask who actually schedules meetings on these days).

Beneficial ownership registers are of international importance.

They are also something of a political minefield with the UK still intent on pushing for them to be publicly accessible.

It was a point raised in debate in the House of Commons only last week where they seemed to spend more time on the topic of what the Crown Dependencies are doing than the States did passing the policy.

Policy & Resources was probably grateful that the States engaged in a rush to dinner – they easily kept control of the message that way.

But it creates the impression that this Assembly is more at home discussing when people can light bonfires than scrutinising international policy. That is a problem.

Members like to remind us that there is much more to their job than debate – all the real hard work goes on behind the scenes, they argue.

And clearly much work creating policy does.

But the decision-making quite rightly happens in a very public forum.

Debate matters – as does how States members react to it.

And deputies do change their mind as a result of what is said in the chamber.

Deputy Richard Graham was persuaded to change his mind during debate on a couple of the Roffey waste amendments because of the power of the arguments for and against, for example, and was open enough to tell people so.

And yes, we all know that some aren't the greatest speech makers.

We also know that there is far too much repetition – which in itself can be symptomatic of people not paying enough attention to what has gone before, or simply sticking too rigidly to a pre-prepared speech.

Some contributions are too long, or follow no logical order.

So perhaps it is sadly inevitable minds drift to what is happening on Instagram.

Technology has its advantages in the chamber.

Deputies can quickly get answers from their staff to questions raised, for instance, or access archive copies of the billet or records of Hansard.

Used in the right way it can enhance debate.

Used in the wrong way it will drive people to distraction.