Names will be scrubbed from official transcript

Wednesday 11th March 2009, 2:59PM GMT.

THE identities of non-States Members named during States debates will be removed from the official transcript in future.

The rules for debate prohibit members of the public and civil servants from being named in the States – they are meant to be referred to by their title, or the context in which they are mentioned. Members agreed a change to the Standing Orders of the House proposed by the Privileges and Procedures Committee by 30 to 18.

Committee chairman Constable Juliette Gallichan said that the move was in response to Senator Stuart Syvret naming people in the House who had no right of reply. Although using people’s names was against the rules, she said, they were still recorded in the official transcript which was published on the internet.

But several Members, including Senator Syvret and Deputies Geoff Southern and Mike Higgins, argued that the move was a restriction on both parliamentary privilege and their right to speak openly in the House. Senator Syvret said that he had not named anyone lightly, but had done so because of things that he had learned that other Members did not know.

Pictured: The States Chamber

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.

1
Mike

March 11, 2009 at 5:53 pm

“Censorship” The Soviot Union would have been proud of the States members who voted im favour of preventing the pulication of information that should be available to the Public

Disgraceful but typical of the Jersey way!!

Report abuse
2
Gross Misconduct

March 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Freedom of information will never happen in Jersey, too much to hide I think.

This is a sad day for democracy when free speech and public interest has been once again curtailed.

‘The Jersey Way’ I’m afraid, but completely out of sync with the modern world.

Report abuse
3
Rob

March 11, 2009 at 8:23 pm

You have to be joking!

Was this Ms Gallichan’s own idea?

Report abuse
4
RM

March 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm

In the UK (and supposedly in Jersey) there is a doctrine known as the Doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility which in short means that the civil servants are not elected and are the responsibility of the Minister of their department they are accountable to them and not the electorate (as it is the ministers discretion to appoint, manage or dismiss civil servants.) Therefore, Civil Servants remain anonymous so they can’t become a political football and if there are problems or they are not doing their Job properly it is up to the Minister in the department to manage them and run the department effectively.

It is then the Minister that is accountable to the elected house and the public and if their department has badly failed it is expected that the minister will step down and accept the responsibility (while this does not always happen this is what is expected to happen at Westminster and often does.)

Civil Servants are not elected and are appointed by ministers to do a Job. Like any person whom holds a Job their manager should make sure they are doing it properly and if they fail or are grossly negligent they should be dismissed. The boss shouldn’t then go to the press and start publicizing the dismissal and failures and reasons as why should an employee in a shop whom made a mistake be accountable to the public? This is the exact same principle here it is the Ministers who are responsible and accountable for the Civil Servants under them and the Civil servants are accountable to the Ministers . . . . . . . or at least that is the theory of how it should work. The day that a Jersey Minister actually takes responsibility for the failings of their department may be the day pigs fly.

Report abuse
5
Pip Clement

March 12, 2009 at 6:04 pm

One of the supposed benefits of Ministerial government over the committee system was that Ministers were going to be accountable for the actions of their departments via questions in the House and if they really made a mess a resignation would be forthcoming.
So far we have had the usual rounds of blame passing and hot denials that anything was wrong so we are still under the old system as far as that is concerned.

Report abuse
6
Milo

March 13, 2009 at 7:53 am

Mike, and others….You just don’t get it. Nothing has really changed as a result of this – everyone who could be legally namesd before can still be named in the States. The rules on naming (and not naming) were put in place in 2005, before most of this current States were even elected. this only deals with removing the names from the Hansard if someone breaks the rules. This is not censorship it is protecting the rights of people like you and me… just members of the public… not to have our names trashed by someone in the States – when we have no come-back against them. At least now anyone doing an internet search on our names would not pick up the incident, in the official record. Have you got any idea how much weght that would carry,with, for example, a potential employer?

Report abuse
7
Adrian

March 14, 2009 at 11:30 am

A case of keeping the plebs in the dark? Stuart has done a valuable job getting news out to those who are unaware of what is going on.

Report abuse