Select a region
Rules have been tightened for convicted election candidates, with the States also directing investigations into enhanced criminal checks and declarations.
The States Assembly & Constitution Committee had proposed liberalising election candidacy rules by allowing the inclusion of more convicts, but the Assembly sent a clear message that it wanted to go in the opposite direction
This wasn’t ultimately opposed by SACC, which welcomed the alternative views.
An amendment from the Home Affairs President, Deputy Rob Prow, was adopted which called for the current restrictions on those recently sentenced to imprisonment to remain in place and to close a loophole that allowed people convicted in other jurisdictions, but on the run, to stand.
That means people will only be eligible if not sentenced to a period of six months or more in the full five years preceding the date of the election, as well as capturing people who have absconded from prison in other jurisdictions.
Two late amendments were also submitted on the day after criticisms were aired which asked for SACC to investigate tightening rules around declaring criminal records and police checks prior to elections for candidates.
Both were also adopted with comfortable majorities.
Pictured: Deputy Rob Prow.
Deputy Prow led debate first, saying his proposal was fully compliant with the European charter of human rights, and that he had serious concerns with what SACC had put forward.
“The short answer is it's just not made out, woefully contradictory, unclear, and confusing.... I believe this will become a matter of serious public concern."
He worried that loosening the rules in line with the rest of the British Isles would still permit people recently convicted of serious physical, sexual, and financial crimes to stand for election unrestricted.
In a widely praised speech, Deputy Tina Bury said the changes proposed by SACC were “so sweeping” they should’ve undergone public consultation.
She said there was too much risk involved and the public has a right to know who they are voting for, without unwittingly voting for serious criminals.
“The electorate wanted more information, not less.This is what SACC’s proposals do,” she said.
She said she had respect for the spirit of the recommendations, which were made by external election experts in 2020, but she said they had been taken too far in the proposals.
Pictured: Deputy Tina Bury.
Several deputies were flabbergasted that police vetting, known as DBS checks, are not required for politicians.
Deputy David Mahoney said sports coaches are required to obtain them for safeguarding reasons, and they don’t have access to as much sensitive information that States members do.
Deputy Carl Meerveld, SACC President, said the issue with checks is the fact politicians are self-employed and it is uncertain who would do the vetting. But he said the direction was ultimately one for the Assembly to decide.
Deputy Prow said the “overwhelming view” was that SACC’s proposal was not fit for purpose.
Deputy Bury proposed investigation into standard and enhanced DBS checks, asking for considering if they should be included in declarations. She said “having the checks is better than not”, but noted the work would require “serious consultation” with law enforcement.
The investigation into declaring all criminal convictions was proposed by Deputy Peter Roffey and seconded by Deputy Meerveld.
SACC did warn members that the Committee currently has no staff, and resources will soon be committed to preparing for the 2025 election.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.