States Meeting Transcript - 19/06/2007

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 19th JUNE 2007

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................7

1. The Bailiff :..............................................................................7

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:.......................................................7
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................7
3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ..............................................7

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................9
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................9
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................10
4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:...................................................11
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................12 The Bailiff :...................................................................................12 The Bailiff :...................................................................................12

4. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin : .................................................12

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................14
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................15
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................15
4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................15
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................16
6. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:.........................................................16
7. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................17

8. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................17
9. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................18
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................18 The Bailiff :...................................................................................19

QUESTIONS.....................................................................................19

2. Written Questions.......................................................................19

1. THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY J.G. REED OF ST. OUEN REGARDING THE DEPARTMENTAL HEADCOUNT AS AT 31ST DECEMBER 2007:....................................................................19
2. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..............................................19
3. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:......................22
4. THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:......................23
5. THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..................24
6. THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..................25

7. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..............................27
8. THE MINISTER FOR HOUSING BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..............................................29
9. THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT WILL TABLE AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION ASKED BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..............................30
10. THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:..............................31
11. THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:....32
12. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT REGARDING THE JERSEY COMMUNITY RELATIONS TRUST:..................34
13. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE ISSUE OF SCRUTINY PANELS OBTAINING ACCESS TO THE LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY MINISTERS:......................................35
14. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE EDUCATION AND HOME AFFAIRS SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE COOPER' OPINION RELATING TO THE ROLE OF CENTENIERS:..............36
15. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER REGARDING THE LEGAL OPINION ON CERTAIN ARTICLES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000:.............................................38
16. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE POST OF PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS MANAGER:............................................................39
17. THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE MODERATION OF HIS POWERS: ..............................................................................40
18. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR

REGARDING THE SYSTEM OF GREEN AND WHITE PAPERS:..................42

19. THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF AN EXTERNAL EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT: ..........................................42
20. THE CHIEF MINISTER WILL TABLE AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION ASKED BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR REGARDING THE SUCCESSION AND CAREER MANAGEMENT POLICY:...........................................43

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS - RESULT OF BALLOT ..............................................................................................44

The Bailiff :...................................................................................44 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :....................................................................44

3. Oral Questions...........................................................................44

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the lowering and re-routing of La Route de la Liberation: ....................44 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................44

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................45
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................45
4. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................45
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45

7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................46

2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel regarding the numbering sequence of Minutes of the Panel dated 16th February 2007:............46 Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel): ........46

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................47
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................47
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................47

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding a breakdown of the latest population figure, including net inward migration:.................................................47 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................47

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................48
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48
4. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................49
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................49
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................49
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................49

4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Minister for Economic Development regarding the introduction of a Financial Services Ombudsman: ......................................50 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):............................50

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................50
2. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................51
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................51
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................51
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................51

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the recording of informal meetings of the Council of Ministers and other bodies:..............................................52 Senator F.H. Walker :.........................................................................52

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................52
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53
3. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................53
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................53

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding :..........54 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................54

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54

7. Senator B.E. Shenton of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the overall concept for the development of the Waterfront: ........................................55 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................55

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................55
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................55
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
4. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................56
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................56
6. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................56

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding alternatives to charges levied under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law 1973, as amended:......................................................................57 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................57

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................57
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................57
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................58

9. Deputy K.C. Lewis of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the operation of any Vulture Funds' in or through Jersey:............................................58 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources:............................58

3.9.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................58

10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the staff employed in the Meteorological Section of the Environment Department: ........59 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):...........................59

3.10.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................59

11. The Deputy of St. Martin of the Chief Minister regarding the bringing in to force of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000:......................................................59 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................60

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................60
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................60

12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding the delay in progressing a Freedomof Information Law:.....................60 Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................60

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................61
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................61
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:...........................................................61
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................61

13. The Deputy of St. Martin of H.M. Attorney General regarding the compliance of the arrangements by which Centeniers present cases in the Magistrate's Court with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000:......................................................62 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................62

1. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................62
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................62
3. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................62
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................63
5. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................63
6. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................64

4. Questions to Ministers without Notice - Minister for Transport and Technical Services..................................................................................65

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................65 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ................65
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65

4.2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................66
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................66
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................66
6. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................67
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................67
8. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................67
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................68
10. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................68

5. Questions to Ministers without Notice - The Chief Minister...........................69

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................69 Senator F. H. Walker (The Chief Minister):..................................................69

2. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................69
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................69
4. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................69
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70

5.5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70

6. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................70
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................71
8. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................71
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................71

5.9.1 Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS.........................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72

6. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :....................................................................73

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY........................73

7. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................74

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................74

8. Draft Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.57/2007)..........................................................................74

The Bailiff :...................................................................................74 8.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................74 8.1.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................74 The Bailiff :...................................................................................75 Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel:...................75

9. Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority: Re-appointment of Chairman (P.70/2007) ...........................................................................................75

The Bailiff :...................................................................................75 9.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................75 The Bailiff :...................................................................................75

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................76
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................76
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................76 The Bailiff :...................................................................................76 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................76

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS....................................................76

10. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee): .........................................................................................76

1. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................77

1. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................77 The Bailiff :...................................................................................77
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................77 The Bailiff :...................................................................................77
3. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................77
4. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................78

5. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................78
6. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................78 The Bailiff :...................................................................................78
7. Senator F.H. Walker :................................................................78 The Bailiff :...................................................................................78

2. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................78

1. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................78
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................79 The Bailiff :...................................................................................79
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................79
4. Senator M.E. Vibert :................................................................80 The Bailiff :...................................................................................80

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................81

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................81 The Bailiff :...................................................................................81

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. The Bailiff :

We now come to the appointment of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. May I just briefly remind Members of the procedure to be followed? Nominations are made and must be seconded. If more than one candidate is nominated each candidate may speak up to 10 minutes followed by 20 minutes of question time and a bell will be rung by the Greffier to assist Members. While each candidate is speaking and being questioned any other candidates must withdraw to a place where they cannot hear the proceedings in the Chamber and they will remain under the protective custody of a member of the States Greffe. We then proceed to a vote and the successful candidate must obtain more than 50 per cent of the votes cast. So, I invite nominations for the Chairmanship.

1. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

I would like to propose Deputy Mezbourian .

The Bailiff :

Is the nomination of Deputy Mezbourian seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour : I would like to propose Deputy Hill.

The Bailiff :

Is the nomination of the Deputy of St. Martin seconded? [Seconded] Very well, we will therefore proceed to an election. I invite the Deputy of St. Martin to withdraw to another place. I invite Deputy Mezbourian to address the Assembly.

3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

This morning the House must elect a new Chairman for the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. In allowing my name to be put forward for this role, I must thank both my proposer - Deputy Breckon - and my seconder - the Deputy of Trinity - for their support which I value. I certainly had not expected 2 weeks ago that I would find myself standing for this position today. The Panel has been chaired since the inception of the former Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel by the Deputy of St. Martin. Following his recent resignation as Chairman, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel as presently constituted is made up of me as acting Chairman ably supported by both the Deputy of St. Mary and Deputy Pitman. When we learned of the Chairman's decision to resign we were sorry but not surprised as he previously had indicated to us that he had difficulty in accepting a democratic majority decision that had been taken by us against his advice. Members will not expect me to dwell on his reasons for resigning, nevertheless an explanation of matters pertinent to it may be relevant at this point. The Panel began a review last year of the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court. At a late stage of that review - in fact in April of this year - following questions that had been raised, it was agreed that a legal opinion should be obtained for our consideration. This was given by Mr. Jonathan Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers and we received it in May, considering it soon afterwards. As expected, it raised a number of issues that we believed we should pursue. We did so by sending the opinion to both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney General asking them specific questions based upon its content and requesting a response from them within 2 weeks. The Minister for Home Affairs, as we had anticipated, advised us that she would not be able to respond until she had received advice from the Attorney General. Although in April we had alerted the Attorney himself to our concerns he wrote following receipt of the opinion and indicated not only that he viewed the matter seriously, but that he thought it weighty, raising new issues for his consideration. As such, he would be unable to provide a response within the 2 weeks we had stipulated. The Chairman told us that we should

publish the report without waiting for a response from the Attorney. Indeed, he told us that a response was not likely to be forthcoming. Believing that for Scrutiny to be taken seriously it is crucial for reports to be balanced and impartial, we argued strongly with the Chairman that we required a response from the Attorney to our questions. To publish a report of this nature without having considered his answer, would - we believed - be irresponsible and not in the wider public interest. It would present a one-sided view only. It would certainly not be impartial. I hope that Members will by now have had the opportunity to read my written response to the question asked about our democratic majority decision to meet with the Attorney General in private and without our advisor. Despite unfounded allegations made by the former Chairman the remaining Panel members, and I quote: "Wished to hold a private off-the-record meeting with the Attorney General", my answer shows clearly that this was not the case. The meeting, due to its sensitivity, would be private and confidential, it would also be formal and minuted. We hoped to establish not only if and when we could expect his response, but to discuss any processes following receipt of it. To put it bluntly, I think that is the point when the Chairman and the Panel parted company. I believed then and I believe now that at that stage the Panel was still in the process of gathering the information that we considered necessary in order to produce a considered, balanced and impartial report. Precedents for private and confidential meetings have been already set, not least during this review when, led by the former Chairman, private meetings had been held, not only with the Attorney General but with a former Centenier who wished to testify in private. Members will note too that such private and confidential meetings do not contravene either Standing Orders or the draft Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee). I believe that the review of the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court must now be completed and the final considered and impartial report soon published. It is time to put political posturing on this issue aside. Today though, we must focus on looking to the future. I think it is prudent that the Panel should have some continuity and the election of a Chairman who has been involved already with the Panel and the issues it has so far considered would - in my view - be appropriate. In fact, with the nomination only of myself and the Deputy of St. Martin, we will have some continuity when the new Panel is constituted. Members will appreciate that I do not offer myself for election lightly and that following the Chairman's resignation it may in fact have been easier for me to walk away from this review and expect someone else to deal with it. Neither walking away nor political posturing is my style. There remains much work to be done. Members have seen the list of aims the Minister for Home Affairs hopes to achieve within the next 18 months and will know from the Business Plan that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture also has much work to do. Their policies must be kept under review if they are held to account for their decisions by both the Scrutiny Panel and by private members. As presently constituted, the Panel is already committed to a review of early years' education and work is well underway on this. I am certain that Scrutiny in this area will prove invaluable. The issue has already provoked a great deal of interest from the public and we have had a number of submissions from them. The early years review will give a voice to the public to influence the development of policies and strategies that affect their lives. It is another task that must be undertaken and completed in the first instance. So the early years and the Centeniers review; we are already underway with those. But if I was elected as Chairman, how would I do things differently? There are issues of course that impact upon both the Education and the Home Affairs Departments, one example being the perceived increase in youth crime. Perhaps,

rather than concentrating on each department in isolation as we have done in the past, we should acknowledge the links between them and consider a review that adopts an alternative approach by scrutinising one area relevant to both departments. While acknowledging too that scrutiny of primary legislation is time consuming and requires a grasp of technical detail, I believe that more attention should be paid by Scrutiny to the legislation that we - the Legislature - are passing. I would hope to address this matter by holding meetings to look specifically at draft legislation pertinent to our remit. If I am elected as Chairman the new Panel would, as the previous Panel did, work within the confines and the parameters of Standing Orders and, when adopted, the Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the P.A.C. I believe though that while Panels must work within

those parameters, they should not be fettered or hindered by the preconceived attitudes or ideas of some Members, who, having participated in the Shadow Scrutiny process, believe that new attitudes and new ideas cannot work and are not acceptable. I would hope to prove them wrong. Learning the processes of this Assembly and of Scrutiny have so far proved to be interesting and challenging experiences. If I am elected as Chairman today, I will view that too as a challenge and I will do my best to meet it. I thank you for listening and look forward now to your questions.

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

May I, first of all, congratulate the acting Chairman on her full answer to my written question which I think raps me over the wrist for my behaviour, and ask what skills in particular she brings to the role that she thinks will enable her to avoid the situation that the previous Chairman got into of not being able to carry a majority of his members with him?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

I thank the Deputy for his question and he quite rightly has noted that the response to his written question was indeed intended as a rap on his knuckles. I think Members will have noticed that the response to his question was considered and the Panel itself as presently constituted has considered the whole issue of the Chairman's resignation with care and deliberation. I regret that the Chairman of the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel felt that he should pose his question to us through a written question and the fact that he asked the Panel to release the Cooper opinion, I think, shows a lack of understanding of the Standing Orders relating to Scrutiny Panels. When the Chairman resigned the Panel issued a brief statement indicating that if Members had any questions or queries that they should contact us personally and the only person who did indeed contact us to ask specific questions was Deputy Le Hérissier. I note that he did that in response to our request and he did not use the easier route of asking questions in the House. But if I may just go back to the Deputy 's question and the reason that I believe it may not contravene Standing Orders but it certainly did not act in the best interests of them. Scrutiny is to operate through Panels of Members appointed by the States and the information that is required during a review is pertinent to the Panel and it is for the Panel to decide when it chooses to release into the public domain any of that information. Not only may it decide when it chooses to release that information, it may decide if it chooses to release it and sometimes if a Panel comes across information that it believes may not be in the wider public interest then it is the Panel's right to not release that information. Going on to the second part of the Deputy 's question, which I believe, and I may have forgotten it now, was the skills that I would bring to the Panel in order to ensure that we would not have my resignation perhaps in the near future. I believe in working on a consensus basis, but I acknowledge that that is not always an easy process to manage, or in fact, to reach. I am a non-confrontational person and that would be reflected in my chairmanship of the Panel. I believe that the Panel must act as a team and if I had any dissent myself from the other members of the Panel, then it would be appropriate to

record that dissent, but to acknowledge too that Panel members are entitled to make their own decisions, whether those decisions are based on advice or not and in this instance, if I may refer back to the reason I believe that our Chairman did resign, it was because 3 individual members against his advice made their own decision and that is democracy and it was a majority decision. We did have advice from both the Chairman and from our advisor. We listened to it, we acknowledged it, but we are absolutely entitled to make our own decisions as is every other Member of this House.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , there is no time limit so far as these answers are concerned, but I just remind you that other Members may wish to ask you questions.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I hate to come back, but the Centeniers report has been characterised in 2 different ways. One, a report that was moving along, so to speak, and sort of stumbled upon new critical information in regard to human rights which took it off in another direction; and another characterisation is that it is a report that was taking an awful long time to materialise and somehow seemed to have got bogged-down. What is the Deputy 's characterisation of how the report moved along and what does she think she has learned from that process?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

First of all I must thank the Deputy for his questions. I think one of the reasons that the report became, to use his term, "bogged-down" was that the Panel made a mistake initially in not giving due consideration to whether or not an advisor would be required for this particular review. Having not given that consideration and therefore not decided to engage an advisor, we proceeded with the review based upon the terms of reference that we had scoped and agreed. Very briefly, I think Members should be aware of what those terms of reference were and indeed are. We were looking to assess the justification for why a recommendation of the review of the criminal justice policy that the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court should cease was not pursued by the Department of Home Affairs. We asked questions accordingly. We also had agreed to assess whether the role played by Centeniers in the Court met the Court's and consequently the public's expectations and requirements. We also examined the system of training and assessment provided to Centeniers for their work within the Court and crucially we looked at the administrative support and advice that they receive for their work. I think looking at those terms of reference perhaps it was quite easy to see that we felt we did not need an advisor in order to be able to cope and produce a thorough and comprehensive review. However, as I mentioned in my speech, the review did take longer than was initially expected and I think from that what we have learned, certainly the Deputy of St. Martin and I who were very involved in the review have learned, we must work more co- operatively in future with the officers who are there to support us. By that, I am not saying that we worked unco-operatively with them, but I think we should make better use of them and perhaps listen to their advice more. Certainly, I do not see it as a criticism of either the Deputy or myself to say that we should have considered their advice more. In my previous answer I said that indeed we listened to advice but we make our own decisions about how to treat it. In April of this year though, certain questions were raised that were, we thought, extremely pertinent and could have perhaps wide-ranging implications both upon the course our review was to take and upon the role

of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court. It was right, I believe, for us to take an opinion on that. An opinion was taken from a U.K. lawyer and, quite rightly too, we looked at the opinion, we considered it and as a Panel we sent a letter, as I have said, to the Minister for Home Affairs and to the Attorney General. That letter was signed on behalf of the Panel by our former Chairman, the Deputy of St. Martin. In that letter - and I do not have it in front of me to quote - but I believe that we used words to the effect that we acknowledged the importance of the opinion that we had received and we felt it was prudent to not finalise our report until we had received a response from the Attorney himself. The decision was reached to use those terms in our letter because we felt it was important that we produce an impartial, balanced and considered report rather than one that would use a legal opinion without giving the Attorney the chance to respond.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , do you think you should allow other Members to ask some questions too? Please do. I am not trying to stop you but

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian : I do tend to speak slowly.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

This is going to be a tough choice for me because I have worked very closely with both of the Deputies and they work very well, both in different ways. Twice the Deputy Mezbourian has mentioned Scrutiny's job is to produce a balanced report. I would like her to clarify that word. I always thought Scrutiny was to produce an evidence-based report. She also mentions she can work well with a team but what she is asking us today is to be the team's leader. What qualifications does she have for that? In hindsight, on the word "balance" as the one legal opinion probably - and I have not seen everything yet - had opinions on the role of people who are maybe the Attorney General himself, maybe the role of Centeniers, does the Deputy believe that that is where the report should have finished and if there was an opinion that differed, that is when there could have been a legal challenge and that is when the Attorney General and the Law Officers of Jersey should have got involved

The Bailiff :

This must be a question, not a speech, please.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, that was a question. It is about balance and hindsight of where the Deputy feels that she thinks Scrutiny should be working. Evidence-based cannot always be balanced, Sir.

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

Sir, you asked me to stop answering earlier in order to allow other Members to ask questions and the Deputy has taken advantage of that by asking me 3 at once. I will do my best to respond. The public perception that the Panel understood following the decision to undertake this review, I regret to say, was that it was one of a personal agenda of our Chairman. I immediately hasten to add that at no point at all did I ever receive the impression that that was the case. Indeed, the Chairman has always and at every time acted honourably and without prejudice either way on this issue. However, he was concerned about the perception the public had of him chairing this review and quite rightly the Panel members shared the same concerns. One of the points that we put strongly to the Chairman following the receipt of the opinion was that if the report was published without allowing the Attorney the courtesy to respond - be that in his role as titular head of the Honorary Police as Attorney General or as legal advisor to the States, and there are some grey areas there, I believe - it was highly likely that the report would not be seen as being impartial because the opinion put one view only and put that view very strongly. We needed to be seen to be impartial, we needed to - and I use the word again - produce a report that we considered to be balanced and balanced by allowing a response to it from the Attorney General. Now, having said that, I think I have forgotten the other 2 questions that the Deputy asked me. I think it may have been along the lines of how I would lead the team - is that correct? Yes. If I am elected as Chairman and I hope you will consider me seriously for that role, it will be led by me, as I said earlier, in a non- confrontational manner. I have learned a lot from the Deputy of St. Martin about how to chair a meeting and I will certainly take that forward in my role as Chairman if elected. Meetings can be, I think, more concisely managed than perhaps they have been in the past. Although everyone here will know that it is extremely important that a Chairman listens to what is said to them by the members of their Panel or Committee. I think it is important not only to listen, but to take account of what is said and there is a difference I believe, in nodding and maybe indicating that you are

listening to someone and taking account of the words and opinions that they are expressing to you.

4. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier :

I was wondering if the Deputy would be very kind and confirm whether or not she would be prepared to serve under the former Chairman if indeed he is re-elected and if not, why not?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

I doubt very much whether the former Chairman would nominate me [Laughter] as one of his Panel members and I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to make that clear to the House. However, if he is successful today and he takes the very wise decision of asking me to sit on his newly constituted Panel, I believe he would be doing that because he would acknowledge that I have played an important part in the life of the Scrutiny Panel to date. As a Panel member, he has acknowledged to me that I have been a very loyal supporter to him and his chairmanship and I think that is important. I have no criticism of the way that the Deputy has chaired the Panel or led the Panel. We have reached a disagreement over a matter of procedure concerning our review and the way forward with it. The Chairman was allowed to voice and record his dissent of his disagreement, he did do that. I think he would be very wise in fact to ask me to sit on his Panel because I would continue to act in the way I have by supporting him but by questioning him as and when it was necessary.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

I wonder if the Deputy would exercise her ability in answering a short question in that I would like to ask her if she would propose to raise the défaut for Deputy Troy ?

The Bailiff :

No, Deputy , I cannot allow that.

5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Just a quick one. If the Deputy found herself in a position where she had one point of view and the rest of her Panel had the other point of view, if she is elected would she follow the democratic view?

Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :

Thank you, Deputy , for that question. I am sure that there will be occasions when that will happen and I have learned from the former Chairman and I would certainly go with the democratic view, that is what this election today is all about.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . Thank you, Deputy , that expires the time period allowed for the questioning and

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I do apologise if that was out of order, Sir. I was trying to raise the humour, perhaps inappropriately, Sir. I apologise.

The Bailiff :

Now, Deputy Mezbourian , would you please withdraw to the Le Capelain Room and ask the usher to escort the Deputy of St. Martin into the Chamber? Would you ask the Deputy of St. Martin to come up? Thank you. Deputy , if you have had time to recover your breath, may I invite you to address the Assembly?

4. Deputy F.J. Hill, B.E.M. of St. Martin :

Members know of my involvement with Scrutiny. I believe my Panels have set high standards and have played a valuable part in developing Scrutiny's profile. It is because of the standards set and the serious departures from them that led to my resignation. I believe Members are entitled to an official explanation and if satisfied in my record as a Chairman and the reason for my resignation then I trust they will re-elect me. In March the Panel circulated a draft report on the role of the Centeniers to the main stakeholders. However, the Panel rightly believed the report should be reviewed by someone with a legal background. While on a fact-finding visit to the Houses of Parliament, we met and discussed our report with Professor Le Sueur who was a Jerseyman, a professor of law and a legal advisor to the House of Lords. He agreed to read it and give us his

opinion. He raised serious human rights concerns in the way our Magistrate's Court operates and suggested the Panel should obtain a formal opinion. On 10th April, which is now over 2 months ago, the Panel wrote to the Attorney General expressing its human rights concerns and asked if he would give a formal opinion. He immediately replied stating he could not do so because he was conflicted. The Panel therefore invited expressions of interest from several local lawyers and 2 barristers specialising in human rights in London. On the basis of timeliness, cost and expertise, the Panel decided to commission an opinion from Jonathan Cooper, an eminent barrister of Doughty Street Chambers in London. It should be noted that Mr. Cooper, only on Saturday in the Queen's Birthday Honours, was awarded the O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) for services to human rights. I would like to - I am sure Members would like to join me - in expressing congratulations to him. The Panel received the opinion on 8th May and discussed it in a draft report on 11th May. My fellow members felt very uncomfortable with the opinion, although they reluctantly agreed that it should be included in our report, they wanted to forward the opinion to the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs inviting them to comment before we published our report. I opposed their view on the grounds that the Panel was trespassing into policy areas. The Attorney General could not give an opinion in the first place because he said he was conflicted. Also, it would cause further delay if the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs were to delay their responses. I believe our job was almost done. We had spent almost 13 months on the review. The Minister and the Centeniers were waiting for our report. We now had to draft our final report and circulate it. It would be then for the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs to comment; certainly not before. I was outvoted but suggested that comments should be provided within 2 weeks. This period was deemed reasonable. It was also agreed that Professor Le Sueur , who by now was our advisor, would continue to work on the draft and we would meet to consider the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs' comments and the final draft at the end of the month which was 3 weeks later. However, it transpired the earliest we could meet was on Monday, 4th June. The Cooper opinion was forwarded to the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs. We stated that the Panel did not wish to proceed without offering them the opportunity of commenting if they wished to do so, but the Panel wanted to conclude this report as soon as practical and would be grateful to receive the comments within 2 weeks. Within 2 days of forwarding our letter the Attorney General replied stating he could not provide the comments within the 2 weeks, but would respond as soon as he really could. However, he offered unsolicited advice in which he said there was no obligation to publish the Cooper opinion and urged the Panel to consider most carefully whether it would be appropriate to publish it. A reply was sent on 22nd May asking if the Attorney General would consider forwarding an outline of response setting out the gist of his views. Later that day Mr. Richard Whitehead contacted our Scrutiny Officer stating he was assisting the Attorney General in reviewing the Cooper opinion and requested the background documents sent to Mr. Cooper. These were sent the next morning. A week later the Minister for Home Affairs informed the Panel that she could not respond until the Attorney General had supplied his comments. Although we agreed to meet, 3 of the Panel decided they no longer

wished to until the comments had been received and that we should wait for however long it took. I said we had agreed to what was considered to be a reasonable time for a response and it appeared that the Attorney General did not want to reply and would keep us waiting for as long as we were prepared to wait. The meeting was held on 4th June. The members considered the final draft which made reference to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney General being offered an opportunity to comment on the Cooper opinion but were unable to do so within the time period. As far as Professor Le Sueur and I were concerned, the Panel had carried out its review. We had our findings and recommendations supported by the evidence, including the Cooper opinion, which was attached to our  final report.   We had offered the Minister and the Attorney General an opportunity to comment on the Cooper opinion and given them a reasonable time. It was now time to approve the report. The Panel was of the general opinion that the report was well-written and contained findings and recommendations that would benefit the Island and Scrutiny. However, they would not give approval until the suggested comments had been received. To find a way

forward, it was decided I should telephone the Attorney General to establish how long he needed to forward his comments. The Attorney General said he wants another 2 or 3 weeks but added that he would like to discuss the opinion in private before commenting but Professor Le Sueur should be excluded. He then said the earliest he could meet was in 3 weeks' time although the Panel wanted me to confirm the meeting for 21st June. I said we should discuss it first. Professor Le Sueur advised the Panel that although it was for them to decide, he said the meeting under the Attorney General's terms was constitutionally unorthodox. He also indicated that if the Panel excluded him, he could no longer properly carry out his role as an independent advisor if he was unable to be informed of the contents of the meeting. I also advised the Panel they should heed Professor Le Sueur 's concerns and I would not be party to any such meeting. However, the Panel insisted on going ahead. In my view, their decision was a total contradiction of the principles that Scrutiny ought to be open and transparent in its dealings save for very exceptional circumstances. This was not one. I found myself in the position where I was outvoted on matters that go to the heart of Scrutiny and how Scrutiny should operate. Immediately after the meeting, I informed the Panel that their insistence to attend to the Attorney General's meeting had made both Professor Le Sueur and my position untenable and I would have to consider my position. I respect my colleagues' right to  hold different  views and Members will  have noted,  albeit reluctantly, I  accepted the decision to seek comments even though I believed they were ill-advised. I believe that Scrutiny can prosper and make a positive contribution to policymaking only if Panels operate and are seen to operate in as public a way as possible. What my colleagues were proposing was a step too far. It strikes at the very heart of Scrutiny and there can be no compromise if we are to earn the public's trust and confidence. I also believe the Island's human rights reputation is at stake because the implications of the Cooper opinion go beyond the interest of tradition. We, as an Island, must face up to the fact that we have agreed to adhere to the Human Rights Law, however unpalatable it may be for some of us. Sir, it is for Members to form their own view and ask themselves what would they have done if they were in my position. As mentioned at the start of my speech, I believe I have done much to advance Scrutiny's cause and ask Members to give me their vote to enable me,

with a new team, to finish the job I started in an open, orthodox and transparent way.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Much has been made, Sir, of the proposed meeting with the Attorney General and it has been suggested that the resigned Chair had agreed previously to private meetings with the Attorney General. Could he identify for us, Sir, why he felt this meeting was a meeting one step too far and why he had agreed previously to a private meeting with the Attorney General?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

The meeting we had with the Attorney General was part of a fact-finding meeting. Like most Panels do when they start out a review, they have a number of meetings. Indeed, we had a number of people come to us at Scrutiny to discuss the way forward so we got an idea of what we were looking at so we could then formulate our course of action. So the difference between this one the first one was part of a fact-finding team. That, I think, is quite unacceptable and I have said there are exceptions. That was one. However, the difference with this particular one was that we had already finished our review and, to my mind, the time for the Attorney General and the Ministers to comment is after we have done our report and it goes out to them for what we consider the 5 days method where people have a look at your report and they are invited to comment. That is the proper way of doing it. I felt, by having a secret meeting with my legal advisor

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt you, but I do not think a confidential meeting is the same as a secret meeting.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Oh, right, Sir, all right. For having a confidential meeting to which our legal advisor was being excluded really was also a slight on him. If we are paying these people - very qualified people - to advise Panels, I think they should have been allowed to be there and I just felt that I have had no part with that type of thing. As I said in my speech, if we are going to look at Scrutiny as being something positive and having the public trust, we must be seen to be open and transparent.

2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Rather regrettably, this whole incidence of re-electing a Chairman for this Panel has revolved around one issue. Therefore, we are not able to scrutinise in questioning effectively any other aspect of the Panel today so the upshot with the cards on the table is the question: what is going to be the outcome of the Deputy 's successful election and what is going to be the outcome of Deputy Mezbourian 's successful election? We are being asked today to decide upon a Chairman but it is on a single issue. What will be the outcome of the issue?

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you must come to your question quickly, please.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I have put it, Sir, but I am trying to make it understandable for the Chairman who seems to be struggling to see what I am saying, Sir. What will be the outcome of this election in respect to this review if the Chairman is successful and what will be the outcome of this review if he is not?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I think I can say what the outcome is if I am re-elected because if I am re-elected, I will go down the course that I think is the proper course; that the new Panel will look at the report and give its consideration. Hopefully they will support it as it is written and it will be then circulated to what I call the stakeholders people like the Attorney General, the Magistrate, et cetera. They will be given the time to comment. Then it comes back to the Panel for its consideration. If we are all happy with it, it then gets circulated to all States' Members. That is the proper process and that is how I would see it. I have not heard what Deputy Mezbourian had to say so I have no idea how she would do it so I do not feel, Sir, I can answer that part.

3. Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Deputy of St. Martin, when Chairman of the Panel - that is before his resignation - obviously was in disagreement with the majority of his Panel members over the release of the Cooper opinion. Is he, the Deputy of St. Martin, of the opinion that his Panel members wish to bury this information or just consider carefully the consequences of releasing it at that time?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

In my speech I said that upon receipt of the Cooper opinion the members felt very uncomfortable. You could say they felt very concerned but certainly they were not happy with it. They were aware of the consequences as, indeed, we all were, but as I said, at the end of the day, we have signed-up to Human Rights and, if, indeed, the opinion is correct, then we should follow it. Bear in mind that opinion is opinion. It is not fact until it has been tried before a court so it would not matter whether the Attorney General gave us an opinion or anyone else gave an opinion. The true test is when it is put to the court. However, one takes notice of opinion otherwise you would not ask for them so I do not think it was a question of me saying I am right and they were wrong. I am saying there was a process of doing so. I do not know whether it was the intention of the Panel eventually to bury the Cooper report because I do not think it ever would be. I would not have thought they were of that ilk because they knew at the end of the day the Cooper opinion will be a public document at some time or other.

4. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

I would like to ask the Deputy of St. Martin with the considerable number of policies coming through from Education and Home Affairs, does the Deputy still feel that jobbing backwards and revisiting a policy decision of some considerable years ago was the most constructive way of utilising Scrutiny resources?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I am disappointed to hear that question from the President of the Chairmen's Panel who, indeed, was going to propose me and decided not to but it should be borne in mind that this particular review was carried out with the knowledge and support of the Chairmen's Panel because before we started out, we made absolutely aware to the Chairmen's Panel what we were doing. In actual fact, if, indeed, the report does get through it will prove that what we have done has been highly successful and really, at the end of the day, will be of benefit to the Island. I have no reason to believe that the review should never have been carried out.

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Deputy tell us - if we can for a moment park this issue - would he tell us what, then, are the future issues he would want to see the Panel involved with; and secondly, Sir, would he feel he has to change his management style in the light of what has happened?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Management style, I think, is about a give and take and I have done a lot of giving and this is not the first time that we had difficulty in trying to get a report produced. It is all about style. I think most of my Panel will have made it publicly known. I know certainly Deputy Mezbourian has thought that I have been a very fair and good Chairman but there are a number of issues to be taken and I think possibly one of the most important is the one in which the Minister for Home Affairs herself is waiting for progress and that is the Criminal Justice Policy. The Centeniers' Report will be a key to that policy, I am sure. There are other issues on there. The Criminal Justice Policy as such is Pillar 9, which we have already given attention to, and given our comments to the Minister. Pillar 9 is the one to do with parole system. I think that will be helpful for this Island to have it as soon as possible and the sooner we get it, the better. There a number of other issues on Home Affairs itself. Then I go on to education but certainly one looks at the overseeing of the Prison Employment Performance Plan. That is something which is very important. There is also the Young Offenders Youth Custody Law, which this House rejected when I brought it through about 3 years ago, but that is now coming back to the States. That is another one. The Firearms Law - the improvements to that law - is going to have to come through. I think that is another one which this Panel will have to give consideration to. There is also user pays, which I think I understand the Council of Ministers accepted the other day, and education and, again, I should bear in mind these things have been discussed and, indeed, the Minister for Education is here in the House. He knows that we have discussed possible areas of reviews, including the Early Years, which the Panel is just about to get underway with, and we also said we would keep an overview of the student loans on higher education again with the approval and co-operation of the Education Minister. We wish to look at the youth service. Also, something which, I think, needs to be looked at is culture, the Arts Trust, Heritage Trust, et cetera. Those are areas that have to be done and also Fort Regent so there

are a number of issues that have to be tackled. The Home Affairs Panel is a very busy Panel.

6. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier :

There have been a number of occasions when Scrutiny have received confidential advice. These are the former Social Affairs Panel received correspondence between the Chairman and the A.G. (Attorney General) to do with the honorary police. The Corporate Services G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) Sub-Panel met the A.G. in private. The J.C.G. (Jersey College for Girls) Sub-Panel received confidential advice in writing from the A.G. and the A.G. during Shadow Scrutiny attended meetings in private. These Panels were the Shadow Scrutiny Panels: the Vibert Panel on Waste and the Southern Panel on Migration. Does the Deputy concede that there are occasions when it is acceptable for Scrutiny Panels to receive advice in confidence?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Yes, it is quite interesting that Deputy Pitman did not offer those suggestions when she was a member of the Panel. No doubt she has done some research since and I am grateful but there are occasions when it is necessary, Sir, to have private meetings. As I said, they are when they are part of a national review but, to my mind, we had finished the review. The report was up and running and we were now ready to go ahead. The time for consultation would be if, indeed, we were going to have a meeting with the Attorney General, it could have been a public one. The Attorney General could have said to us: "Look, I think this is an issue that I think is very important." I would ask possibly we do have a meeting but really we had never discussed that as a Panel. The Panel had already made its mind up they wished to have written comments. Personally, it might have been better had we had a full public meeting and asked the Attorney General, in other words, re-open our review to allow him the opportunity but that was never proffered by any one of the Panel and it was suggested we go and write to him. I do not know if there is any more I can add.

7. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

I would like to ask the Deputy if he feels that there was pressure to change the contents of the report or the opinions expressed in the report by any third parties?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I did not quite catch the last bit of it , who is

Deputy P.N. Troy :

By any third parties. Was there pressure on his Panel to change the contents of the report or the opinions expressed in the report?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

I suppose one could almost say one would have to ask the author of the letter. Certainly, I have only quoted a bit of the letter because I think it would be if there is difficulty about stuff when it is in confidence, the Panel has information given it that it cannot impart to others but I certainly felt that the tone of the letter was not one I would have expected and I think that is one of the areas that the Panel had to juggle with. I would far rather we had had an open and aboveboard meeting. I just do not know why we were asked to have an in confidence meeting so far down the line. It seemed to be, to my mind, wrong, but that is a question maybe for the author of the letter.

8. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Does the Deputy of St. Martin acknowledge that perhaps another reason why that final meeting of the Panel under his leadership did not progress the report was that the other Panel members only had sight of that report which was, in fact, fundamentally different to previous drafts in a number of respects - in fact, practically every respect - a scant few days - 4 days, in fact - before that meeting and that they had all independently contacted him, asking for the meeting not to take place. He has furthermore mentioned at various times unorthodox procedures. Does he consider that the preparation of the report by the advisor rather than the Scrutiny Officer to be pertinent in this case?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

One of the problems that the Panel has had to overcome is the fact that we finished the report in early November. We then had the Overdale Report running. We also had the G.P. (General Practitioner) Out-of-Hours running and we also had the split in the Panel. Now, if anyone would like to have planned that, they would certainly not have planned that from the beginning. It was certainly not my way of doing it. However, that is how it came and it was decided that one would get ahead, make a start on the Centeniers Report by one officer. The G.P. Out-of-Hours was

another one - same officer who was going to carry out the Overdale Report, and the Overdale Report was considered to be the first one to come through so that one was done and that was completed. That same officer then made a start on the G.P. Out-of-Hours. At the same time, the officer who was given responsibility for the Centeniers Report was still working on that Centeniers Report and it took a tremendous amount of time for the officer, eventually assisted by the Scrutiny Manager, to try to draft that report. It took ages, it took a tremendous amount of input from both myself and Deputy Mezbourian , who I would like to pay tribute to because she and I had to spend a lot of time. One of the difficulties we have with the Deputy of St. Mary is that the fact she knew nothing about the inquiry whatsoever because she had not been part of it. Deputy Pitman had been ill for a number of the hearings and only attended 5 of the hearings, so when we eventually had to draft a report, I had 2 members who had been very involved with it, one who had had no involvement whatsoever and one who had only half an involvement. So, at the end of the day, the report had to be drafted and it was drafted in conjunction with myself - initially with the Scrutiny Officer - and then the advisor. The report that we did see within 4 days we had already partially agreed to on 10th May, a month earlier, and what we were now agreeing to really was a smaller report with a number of issues taken out. So I would have thought what the Deputy of St. Mary is getting at is that really there was ample time for people to read and study that report.

9. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

I would like to ask the Deputy a general question regarding the use of advisors and the involvement in production of reports. Does he believe that if an advisor is going to be used, that advisor needs to be party to all the meetings in the whole review or, as it seems in this case, brought in at the very end?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

The use of advisor really came into it, as I said in my speech, once we had done our initial report. There was something at the back of my mind that something was not right about it. When we went to the Houses of Parliament we met Professor Le Sueur and we said that maybe he would like to look over our report and see if there were any issues that we may have failed to cover. It was at that stage when he pointed out to us - which really, at the end of the day, probably could have been said it would have been obvious if we had had an advisor earlier on - that there were human rights concerns and once we were aware of the human rights concerns, the whole tenor of the report changed because of the consequences of the information or the advice or the opinion we had received. So therefore, as I said, the tenor of the report changed and it was necessary then to involve the advisor, who really was a legal advisor of the top class, who was then assisting the Panel. We were then following his advice.

10. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

As a follow-on question, is it not the case that one could consider that the Scrutiny Panel started a second review rather than completing its terms of reference and if that is not the case, could the Deputy explain why?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

No, I do not think it was a second review because really it was, had we picked up that very crucial point and I have got the transcript here with me now. And when an answer was given by the Attorney General on 7th November at a public hearing, I just do not know why it having read it now, had I been aware of human rights concerns, I would have asked the Attorney General that question there and then and our Panel obviously would have gone down that route. But really it was as a result of the information received after the Cooper opinion that changed the tenor of the actual report but it was still very much involving the role of a Centenier in court so really - certainly to my mind - it was within the terms of reference. I may add that no one else in the Panel either dissented from what we were about doing, getting this advice. I think what the concern was was what the advice told us and that has been the concern that we will have to address.

The Bailiff :

Do you have a very short question, Deputy Martin? Deputy Martin, do you wish to ask a very short question? No. Very well. Well, I think that effectively concludes the question period for the second candidate and I invite the Greffier to ask Deputy Mezbourian to come back to the Chamber and I invite any other Member in the precincts who wishes to vote on this matter to return to his or her seat, thank you. [Aside] Can I ask the Ushers and Deputy Viscount to circulate the ballot papers? Is there any Member who does not yet have a ballot paper? May I call Members to order, please. Is there any Member who does not have a ballot paper? Very well. Well, I ask the Deputy Viscount and Usher to collect the ballot papers. If all the ballot papers have now been placed in the urns I will ask the Attorney General and the Deputy Viscount to act as scrutineers. Would Members agree to return to the Order Paper while the votes are being counted?

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

1. THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY DEPUTY J.G. REED OF ST. OUEN REGARDING THE DEPARTMENTAL HEADCOUNT AS AT 31ST DECEMBER 2007:

Question

Would the Minister provide a total budgeted headcount as at 31st December 2006 and explain why these figures were not included in R.51/2007 Public Sector Manpower Report: December 2006'?

Answer

The total budgeted headcount of 2,499 as at 31st December 2006 for Health and Social Services was included in R.51/2007 Public Sector Manpower Report: December 2006.

2. THE CHIEF MINISTER BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:

Question

Would the Chief Minister advise the Assembly what the total number of public sector staff vacancies were for the six month periods to 30th June 2005, 31st December 2005, 30th June 2006, 31st December 2006 and 30th May 2007 within his Department and the non-Executive Departments?

Of the staff posts transferred to and from his Department and the non Executive Departments during the above periods, how many were actually vacant at the time of transfer?

What funds were saved by Departments from unfilled posts in each period?

How many of the existing vacancies are currently budgeted for and how many vacancies have remained unfilled for a period of 12 months or more?

Answer

The total number of vacancies is given below in respect of the Chief Minister's Department and the non-executive departments -

None of the posts transferred to and from Chief Minister's Department during the above periods were vacant at the time of transfer, with the exception of one H.R. post from the Treasury.

In December 2005, following the States Human Resources and ICT transformation programme, HR and ICT posts from each States department were transferred to the Chief Minister's Department. CMD did not transfer any posts to other departments during this period.

The Law Draftsman formerly reported to the States Greffe, and in December 2005 the reporting line changed to the Chief Minister's Department. All posts were filled at the point of transfer.

Whilst posts have been reported as unfilled, some of the work has continued to be performed in order to maintain services and this cover has been achieved through a number of ways including temporary staff, acting-up arrangements, overtime and short-term interim staff. Therefore it is not possible to give an accurate figure in relation to any potential savings directly related to particular vacancies.

However, during the period 2005 – 2007, the Chief Minister's Department has undergone a major organisational  restructure  which,  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  Fundamental  Spending Review and a programme of year-on-year efficiency savings, has achieved financial savings of £700,000 a year. Whilst it is clearly desirable that savings should be achieved wherever possible, I am of the view that the Chief Minister's Department is under-resourced at the present time.

In the case of the Law Officers' Department the vacant' posts were to be funded from the Criminal Offences Compensation Fund. The funding would only have been released as posts were filled. There has been a delay in filling these as legal posts are difficult to fill.

Six existing vacancies are currently  budgeted for,  and the number of  vacancies unfilled (and budgeted) for a period of 12 months or more at May 2007.

* Posts are not budgeted for (may be filled soon from savings in Scrutiny budget).

** Trainee posts were vacant as there are insufficient funds to fill the posts. Changes to the way Probation officers are trained may allow for funding to be made available in future

3. THE MINISTER FOR TREASURYAND RESOURCES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. OUEN REGARDING STATISTICS ON STAFF VACANCIES:

Question

Would the Minister advise the Assembly what the total number of public sector staff vacancies were for the six month periods to 30th June 2005, 31st December 2005, 30th June 2006, 31st December 2006 and 30th May 2007 within his Department?

Of the staff posts transferred to and from the Department during the above periods, how many were actually vacant at the time of transfer?

What funds were saved by Departments from unfilled posts in each period?

How many of the existing vacancies are currently budgeted for and how many vacancies have remained unfilled for a period of 12 months or more?

Answer

The increase in vacancies from mid 2005 is largely due to –

• there  are  14  Trainee  posts  allocated  to  the  Treasury  for  development  of  qualified accountants. No trainees were appointed at this time and the posts were unfunded. The Trainee vacancies reduced in December 2006 as 4 trainees have been appointed for reasons of succession planning;
• the  transfer  of  posts  to  Treasury  and  Resources  during  2006  increasing  the  overall headcount  for  the  Department.  This  was  due  to  the  States  finance  transformation programme and establishment of Property Holdings;

• the Treasury and Tax divisions were recruiting at the time of the June 2006 vacancy count and experiencing some difficulty filling posts, particularly in qualified senior roles. By December 2006 most posts had been filled;
• the  Treasury  Shared  Services  division  has  not  budgeted  for  all  posts  following  the centralisation  of  processing  and  payroll  in  line  with  savings  arising  from  the  finance transformation programme. Six posts were saved by the end of 2006.

Of the staff posts transferred to and from his Department during the above periods, how many were actually vacant at the time of transfer?

What funds were saved by the Treasury & Resources Department from unfilled posts in each period?