States Meeting Transcript - 02/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 2nd JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. Council of Ministers: Vote of No Confidence (P.99/2008)...............................3

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................3
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................5
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:...................................................................7
4. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :............................................................8
5. Senator M.E. Vibert :.....................................................................8
6. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier : ......................................................10
7. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................11
8. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................14
9. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................15
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................16
11. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................18
12. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................19

13. Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):.............................................19
14. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................25

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED...............................................33 The Bailiff :...................................................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURMENT ..................................................................34

2. Chief Minister: Vote of Censure (P.100/2008) ..........................................34

The Bailiff :...................................................................................34

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................34
2. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................40
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................43
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................44
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................44
6. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................44
7. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................45
8. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................45
9. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:...............................................45
10. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................45
11. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................46
12. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................46
13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................47
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47
15. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................48
16. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................49

17. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................49
18. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................50
19. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................50
20. Senator S. Svyret:......................................................................51
21. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................51
22. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................52
23. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................52
24. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54

3. Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier : Masterplan – rescindment (P.97/2008)..................55

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................56
2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................60
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................63

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................65

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

May I make a statement to the House quickly. The vacancy on the Public Accounts Committee will be taken by Deputy Roy Le Hérissier. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, it should have come to the States yesterday but we will bringing a proper proposition to the States next week.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Just to clarify, Madam Chairman, you wish to nominate Deputy Le Hérissier for the new member of the Public Accounts Committee.

Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

I apologise. He is such a wonderful character I am taking the States asset for granted. I apologise for taking them in vain.

1. Council of Ministers: Vote of No Confidence (P.99/2008)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, so that matter will be listed for the supplementary order paper next Tuesday. The debate resumes on the proposition of Senator Syvret that the States have no confidence in the Council of Ministers.

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

Well what an interesting day we had yesterday. Having listened to the Chief Minister and then Minister for Economic Development, 2 of the few Ministers that have spoken so far, we heard how wonderful everything is. One could be forgiven for thinking it was too good to be true, which of course it is. A gleaming portrayal that was selective, carefully avoiding the more unfavourable parts. In fact I did begin to think their speeches were somewhat similar. I wonder if the Communications Unit had a hand in this. Perhaps they are running evening classes, I do not know. But there seemed to be much embellishment. The Chief Minister's input was relatively non specific whereas Senator Ozouf 's in fact had more detail. Apparently we learned that visitor numbers are up. I believe they are, but if my memory serves me correctly that is only when you compare it with last year, which is one of the worst on record. How has this occurred? I thought we had done away with the Tourism Committee and replaced it with an organisation consisting mainly of tourism operators. So I ask how can the Minister claim credit for that? Especially as the last figures I saw suggested a reduction in the tourism budget with a commensurate increase in the assistance of the finance industry. We heard about diversification. Well, it is indeed true that one or 2 businesses have been given assistance to get on to the bottom rung of the ladder. But they are hardly likely to be competing with our finance industry in the short term. So when he did say that in the past the economy had prospered despite government, but that was no longer the case, I have to say well I think nothing much has changed. I have never had much confidence in reports when they are the subject of the investigation of the people who wrote them. As I said when I started, we had an interesting day yesterday but I think we did wander around a little going somewhat off course. To the extent that I wondered when I was having a coffee break whether another debate had started without my realising it. Hardly likely, I have to say as I only ever go as far as the next room where, of course, the speaker relays precisely to me what is happening in this Chamber. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Council. I have to say that the number of times in this Assembly when there is only 3 or 4 Ministers present is not unusual, and there are some persistent offenders. But more importantly, and the point I would wish to make, is that with the exception of one or 2, and Senator Vibert springs to mind, most are not only missing from the Chamber, they,

unlike myself, are not in the next room either. When I referred to Senator Vibert , I meant he was in the next room. Sorry, just to make it clear I realise what I was saying could have been ambiguous. But the situation is that they are not in the next room, they are not generally to be found in the building. If, in fact, that is true, I think it is another marker that either ministerial government is not working or several Ministers are not up to the job and cannot cope with it. I spoke just a few seconds ago about wandering off course. Well, I think we should be absolutely clear what this proposition is about. I know it has been alleged a week or so ago this is simply an electioneering gimmick. Perhaps those who make that suggestion have forgotten that the proposer is not standing for election. It is easier to jump to conclusions when attacking the messenger as a diversion to the real issue. Others have said: "What is the point so close to election time? No one is going to go through the exercise of finding new Ministers if they will only be in the office a couple of months, what is the point?" I am afraid those making those comments are the ones who are missing the point because to follow that argument to its logical conclusion it would mean that Ministers could do what they like during the last 3 terms of any session in the knowledge they do so with impunity. That is simply not acceptable. When is the right time? It is not in the first year because Ministers are finding their feet. Not in the last year because it is too close to the election. It seems to me that Ministers are unaccountable and the idea that they are accountable is an illusion. The reality is the move from committee to ministerial government has not been the success those now defending their positions claimed it would be. We were promised huge savings. We have seen some but not huge ones, such as the recycled £20 million. We were promised quicker decisions. I have always maintained that government, like justice, must first and foremost come up with the right decision. Only after that criteria has been fulfilled should one consider swiftness. The decisions we have witnessed over the last 3 years, especially the last few months, have at times certainly been speedy. Unfortunately, they have also been ill-advised and incompetent, requiring this Assembly to undo some of them. Ultimately, therefore, those decisions have taken longer, not to mention the effort and resources required to address the mistake or the inconvenience and distress to the public. Going back a while I think of the Les Pas fiasco, the sale of the Girls' College, the traffic island at Beaumont, the infamous 30 mile an hour stickers, the proposition from Home Affairs, the airport appointment, the waterfront development, it goes on like some nightmare. I was just thinking this morning, what about the compost at La Collette? The disgusting smell of compost frequently pervades the surrounding area, this morning is no exception, the car park at Snow Hill seems to smell like a composting area itself. Why is nothing done about it? Why is there apparent wilful disregard of the statutory nuisance law? It has been suggested - and I put it no more strongly than that - that Health and Social Services, who administer the law, will not act because it would be against another Minister, Transport and Technical Services. Perhaps this is what is meant by collective responsibility. Then we have the Council's comments where they are trying to justify themselves on past performance. Well, apart from not being a terribly convincing document, I am minded to draw an analogy, a driver goes over the yellow line and causes an accident. His defence, well he stopped at the yellow line many times before so this lapse should be taken in context. I do not imagine, the magistrate would be terribly impressed. We could, of course, as it has been suggested, bring votes of no confidence in the individual Ministers with which we are not satisfied. Well, clearly, that would involve severally separate debates but it would also deny the opportunity to ventilate failings of the collective nature as encompassed by the Council of Ministers. Another

consideration, of course, is the fact that some of these Ministers will be leaving at the next election. Some voluntary, some perhaps otherwise. Therefore impossible to examine their failures if we leave this debate until after the elections, which brings me back to a comment I made a few moments ago that when Ministers appear to be failing towards the end of our 3 year term must that always mean that they are immune from the normal procedures of accountability? Because if it does then this Government is completely unaccountable. I am not prepared to tolerate such a scenario even though a successful outcome to this proposition might cause inconvenience. I believe that is a minor issue compared with the public perception of doing nothing. If we just wring our hands and agree that things are not quite as rosy as the Chief Minister's garden, that we

really have not the strength of character to do anything about it. I am sure there is not one Member in this House who is not aware that this legislature has never been held in lower regard. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how it could get any lower. How much longer can this Assembly afford to ignore public opinion and indulge in the business as usual: "Things are working quite well" when it is patently obvious that not only have the wheels come off ministerial government, but the rest of the vehicle is rapidly assuming the appearance of something that has been fly tipped. We have to act and now is the time to do so. I have never been comfortable making personal attacks on fellow Members, I believe in attacking the argument, not the person, which causes me something of a dilemma because identifying a catalogue of failures by any particular Minister will inevitably lead to criticism of that person. I have no desire, and I am sure Members have not either, to hear an hour's monologue depicting the failure of every Minister that I believe relevant to this proposition. How, therefore, does one address these failures without being personal? Well, it is not easy. There is another reason why I support the proposition as it addresses the problem in more general terms and is why I broadly support the report accompanying it. Indeed, if Members wonder why the report accompanying it is possibly less forthright than they might have imagined it would be, they can blame me because I requested some modifications before I would lend my name to it. I have been unhappy with the performance of ministerial government, as Members will know, for some time, because I believe it has failed to deliver. But what we are addressing here is failure by the present Council of Ministers to provide competent government. Issues such as I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment System) and G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax), even to this day, have not been fully sorted out when they should have been sorted out before introduction. We have various leases which have been unsatisfactory. St. Helier Yacht Club, for example; the issue of the sale of the Girls' College; as I have said before, the Beaumont roundabout, the 30 stickers, et cetera. Several orders have been made in haste, clearly without due diligence. What concerns me is that previously such situations would not have pertained because before there were 6 or 7 minds to apply to any problem, now there is only one so that one has to be even more careful than previously because otherwise the result is inevitably more mistakes. Those who were previous presidents of the committee and had the assistance of other minds to address the issue, who may have relied upon that committee for support, suddenly find they are on their own and, in some cases, cannot cope. The Council of Ministers was supposed to be a sort of overgrown committee which would allow Ministers to act collectively thereby mitigating the loss of committee membership. It seems to me that has not worked either or the examples I gave a moment ago would not have occurred. It seems the only collectiveness is of an unacceptable nature. Yesterday I think it was the Chief Minister who said - but my recollection may be wrong and I am sure he will pull me up if I am - it was inadvertently let slip that Assistant Ministers had been roped in to support the opposition to this proposition. A clear indication to my mind, as if we need reminding, that party politics do exist in Jersey but the problem is there is only one party. Of course the pièce de résistance was the waterfront debate brought in the name of the Council, which we are all aware has caused the Government to sink into even lower regard than that previously existing. That is why we needed this debate, because as usual there were 2 choices but I think we should be clear what they are. Members can vote contre' and by so doing let the public know that they are perfectly satisfied with the way our government has performed in the last 3 years, and especially in the last few months. Or they can vote pour' and indicate that they are not satisfied. Referring to a comment I just made a few seconds ago, it will be interesting to see exactly how the present one party system works in a day where, for example, Assistant Ministers will vote to keep themselves in office and endorse a failed government, or whether they vote on the merits of the proposition. So in conclusion I think it fits the situation nicely, I would sum up our present Council of Ministers with a comment once made by the present Mayor of London when he said: "My friends, as I have discovered myself

there are no disasters, only opportunities." Indeed opportunities for fresh disasters. Thank you.

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I must admit Senator Syvret's opening speech was one of the very worst that I have had to endure in this Assembly since I entered politics. Because it was not about the people of Jersey and it was not about the Council of Ministers, it was not even about politics in Jersey, it was very much a me, me, me speech telling us [Approbation] how wrong we all are and how the former Minister has got it so right. Yes, he is the father of the House, a politician of 17 years standing and until quite recently was a Member of the Council of Ministers. Senator Syvret has in the past described this Assembly as a bunch of gangsters and half-wits. This is actually probably one of the least insulting descriptions that he has levied upon this Chamber. The no confidence proposition was therefore signed by 3 of these gangsters and half-wits and I shall be grateful if the Senator will let us know in which category each one sits when he sums up. [Laughter] It would be very easy to turn the other cheek in a debate such as this and not react to the erroneous assertions being made but I believe it is about time the public opened their eyes and realise that they have been hoodwinked by a failed Minister bitter about his sacking and determined to seek retribution on those that dismissed him. In this speech I shall seek to show why this Assembly and the public should ignore the arguments of Senator Syvret. His patronising remarks in his proposition reveal a man with a much higher opinion of himself than the majority of the population have of him. Unlike Senator Syvret, Deputy Breckon, Deputy Baudains and Deputy Duhamel, I understand the ministerial system, a new system that is full of flaws, flaws that have to be sorted out in a considered non aggressive way. I probably understand it better than they do because I was not involved in its construction and therefore I understand what it is rather than what I perceived it to be when it was devised. There are faults with the Council of Ministers and I have been heavily critical both as a Minister and on the Scrutiny Sub Panels. However, ministerial government needs fixing not destroying. We need to treat what we have with respect. The decision today is are you a mechanic willing to repair the defects or a wrecker willing to destroy everything? Unfortunately Senator Syvret was a good Health Minister but a disastrous Social Services Minister. He never bothered to connect with his employees, visit residential homes and places such as Greenfields, follow up on policy, he never gave written direction, minuted meetings with follow up tasks, or kept on top of things. He even admitted as much in his opening speech. Albeit, of course, it was not his fault. How convenient the attack on the children's service when he became aware of the police investigation. He is very much a Teflon politician and you have got to question what he has actually achieved in 17 years. I think it is about time he stopped hiding from the fact that he was responsible for child protection for many, many years. In his opening speech he spoke of a particular failing at Social Services where he deemed the Child Protection Handbook so deficient that he went over to see them. He goes on to say that he found out later that the changes were not acted on. But whose fault was this? Should he not, as Minister, have kept on top of the situation? Is he blaming others to deflect the blame from himself? I would like to deal with the points raised in the proposition regarding myself as

Health Minister. With regard to the pandemic flu preparations I inherited a situation whereby basic procedures had not been followed and the most obvious of questions had not been asked. But with Senator Syvret's lack of business or management experience I doubt whether he would have known what questions to ask. It was a situation, like the Children's Service, where myself and Senator Perchard have been left to sort out Senator Syvret's mess. An announcement was made that vaccines would be purchased without the funding authorisation of the States Assembly being in place. Since Senator Syvret's sacking much work has been done regarding the logistics of the distribution of vaccine, quantifying the liability to be borne by the States and in ensuring certainties of supply. I thank the Health Scrutiny Panel for their report yesterday that says that the work has now been done. With regard to the allegation that I proactively and publicly attacked the police investigation into child abuse, this is just completely and utterly false. I am a family man, married to someone who was brought up in the care system in the U.K. (United Kingdom). The announcement of the murdered child, with the open invitation to a media eager to lap up the words of those quick to denigrate Jersey and the unhealthy special relationship between Senator Syvret and the police, had nothing to do with the real child abuse tragedies that have affected so many. [Approbation] The child abuse victims were callously used for political purposes and now we

have opened up old wounds, I fear that some may never close. On child abuse matters the police have mine and Senator Perchard's full and complete support. With regard to the assertions that Health and Social Services is full of manifestly deficient senior officers, which I assume were employed during his long career in charge, I would like to draw Senator Syvret's attention to his own track record as an employee of the taxpayer. In 2007 he was present for just 59 of 171 votes, an attendance record of 34.5 per cent. So far in 2008 he has voted just 27 times out of a possible 90; a 30 per cent attendance record in this Chamber. He is not a member of scrutiny, he is not a member of the Executive, he has no excuse for not voting in debates. Rather interestingly, he was not even present for the part of the waterfront debate that he based his no confidence vote on. He was on défaut that day. Mind you, nor was Deputy Le Claire, who was a fellow no confidence signatory. I would not tolerate such attendance records among my staff at Health and Social Services and I wonder sometimes whether the Senators should consider sacking themselves. In summary, it is not the Council of Ministers that have let the public down. It is a poll topping Senator who refuses to accept responsibility, who runs to the U.K. at the slightest whim, and a man who has moved from an enthusiastic Minister to a destructive communist in 2 short years. [Approbation]

3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:

Yes, that is a very hard act to follow. In actual fact my particular comments were that as far as the report accompanying the proposition goes, it was a bit like the old music hall joke, that we are all out of step except the Senator. I happen to agree with him that the Council of Ministers is not perfect, but then neither is anybody else. What particularly bothers me is that this proposition, as are some of the other speeches, is entirely destructive and there is nothing constructive contained in it. If you are going to pull down the castle, you do need to have something to put in its place. We have had a number of grievances aired, which is very cathartic but is it useful? We have been given an either/or scenario of economic growth. Well if there is no economic growth then we will stagnate and that would make life very difficult for the finance industry and if that leaves we will either be a county of England or dependent on the E.U. (European Union) which means we will be back to tourism, agriculture and growing cabbages. I think there is a balance to be struck between the 2 extremes which will be hard work, as all compromises are to set up. We heard about the carbon footprint effect of the Esplanade buildings. Well, you know, sorry, that is past history, they are developing green cement and it is equally possible that we could revert to lime cement as used by the Romans. One man's crisis is another man's opportunity. I am also curious about Deputy Southern 's estimates of G.S.T. I was playing with my calculator last night and it just seemed to me that if I were paying £1,000 a year in G.S.T. then my disposal income must be £33,000 a year and if I am paying £1,500 in G.S.T. then it is probably around about £50,000. We will no doubt argue about it in the coffee room afterwards.  [Approbation] I am not going to comment on all the grievances that have been aired. I am really rather sad that my own pet hobby horse, and arguably the most important, has been overlooked. The state of financial management within the States, particularly in the area of controlling spending. It is unfortunate that when the Council of Ministers, and indeed many States Members, see extra income, it is a bit like a cartoon, you can see the pound signs lighting up in their eyes and they are full of ideas as to how to spend it. If women

ran the household budgets like that then the Petty Debts Court would be overflowing. I think one of my prime disappointments in this Council of Ministers is the somewhat cavalier manner in which the recent report on the spending review has been treated. I hope in his reply that perhaps the Chief Minister will put my mind to rest and say that it is being attended to very seriously. I do live in hope that the suggested economies will be introduced in the business plan. I happen to think that it is essential that spending is curbed. I do not know what the 3 wise economists will say but my instincts, and those of the bank for international settlements, tell me that it is time to exhibit caution where additional or unnecessary spending is concerned. I will no doubt return to this theme in future debates. On the other hand, I think we are finally getting notice taken of Scrutiny. Scrutiny has scored some notable successes with various reports and the public are beginning to

rely on scrutiny reports for an understanding of what policies mean. Some Ministers even read reports sensibly and react constructively when they might otherwise disagree with them. I would suggest that these are the effective Ministers. I think perhaps many of the problems between Ministers and Members is somewhat like the problems between politicians and the public. They do not listen. The Council of Ministers do not have the monopoly over good ideas, and the rest of the House does not like to be ignored. I do not either. I do happen to think though that the relationship is improving, albeit with a few rough edges here and there. I do not happen to think that the current proposition is in the best interests of the Island but it is useful. It demonstrates that there are a number of amendments that we require to the States of Jersey Law. For instance, to allow the Chief Minister to reshuffle the Ministers. I suppose the effect of this is a bit like an end of term report. The Senator might perhaps give the Council of Ministers an F, I think somewhere between a B minus and a B. However, I will not be supporting the proposition.

4. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

There has been much talk yesterday and today about policies, non involvement by all Members, but this is the Assembly that has the ultimate say in any policies that the Minister brings forward and to that stage we are all accountable. We are very quick to gripe, to complain, but Jersey is a good place to live. That is not achieved by accident or overnight. Our economy is thriving. We have a good health and education system. It is the envy of quite a few places around the world. How has this been reached? This has been reached by good ground work achieved by past as well as present day States Members. I would like to pick up a point that Deputy Southern mentioned yesterday, it is a shame he is not here. He mentioned that the poorest of society is now worse off with the introduction of income support. I would like to challenge him on that and say the real point, the real poorest people in our society, the ones that really live on the fringe in our Island, are certainly better off with income support. They are the homeless who are on our streets, and also who stay in shelter. I stress that they are certainly better off in our new income support system. One area that can be improved is in the area of communication from Council of Ministers to other Members. If communication is not a priority then the perception could be that there are issues that are hidden. Deputy Power mentioned that there should be an Assistant Minister with responsibility for agriculture. There is - he is the Assistant Minister for Economic Development. So if Members are not aware of this then the public have no chance. The Council of Ministers is doing a good job but, as in any organisation, it is not perfect. We, as an Assembly, must take some part of the responsibility too. We are elected to make decisions, however difficult and uncomfortable that might be, for the benefit of the people of Jersey.

5. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I do not intend to make a very long speech, I am sure Members will appreciate. The Deputy of St. Martin said yesterday about Ministers getting up to defend their departments. I feel it would be wasting Members' and the public's time in eulogising my department's achievements in a long speech. I believe both States Members and the public are aware of the excellence of our education system, the high achievements of our sportsmen and women, and the strength of Jersey's cultural life. I do not intend or seek to take credit for all this. I inherited an already very good service and my job has been to ensure the conditions were there for these achievements to flourish, grow and improve. I believe I have succeeded in that. Our schools with their internationally recognised emphasis on critical skills and assessment for learning have not only improved the standard of the exam results year on year, but also excel in allowing all our young people to reach their potential. I was particularly saddened that within his speech Senator Syvret decided to name and be uncomplimentary about 2 of the Island's secondary schools. I utterly refute the Senator's suggestion that any of our schools merely operate a system of containment. I thank the Constable of St. Helier for defending one of the schools which he had visited so that he knew first hand the claims to be false. As far as I am aware, Senator Syvret has never visited any of the Island's secondary schools. If he had - and I invite him to do so - any honest views would have to be markedly different to those he expressed. All our secondary schools produce superb results and achievements for their pupils. As a Minister I have also seen an increase in the number of degree courses being made available locally, including a new foundation degree in finance, while also trialling the International Baccalaureate in one of our sixth forms [Approbation].  I particularly thank Deputy Gorst who is a keen support of the International Baccalaureate. Another Member, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber, Deputy Breckon I believe it was, mentioned without the committee system there were fewer politicians available to visit schools. The Deputy may remember, that shortly after becoming Minister I wrote to all States Members urging them all to make contact and develop a relationship with their local schools, and I know a number have and thank them for it, as I saw this a way of overcoming not having 6 committee members to go around. Briefly turning to sport, there have been continued increases in the number of people playing sport and keeping fit, so vitally important for nurturing a healthy community. While our top sportsmen and women have proved themselves to be some of the best in the world. Our bowls team have just won 2 British titles. The Island now has a cultural strategy pointing the way forward locally after this Assembly approved plans I brought forward last year. What charges has Senator Syvret laid against me as the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture and the Council Ministers to warrant a no confidence vote? In his report accompanying his proposition he says I have failed to deliver on early years' education. Wrong I am afraid, Senator, I delivered a way forward but the States last year decided there was not enough money available to implement my proposals for 20 hours free nursery education for all 3 to 4 year-olds, but I can assure the Senator and Members, and I hope they will be more generous this year, that I will be trying again but I believe it is something we should be offering to all our 3 to 4 year-olds. The Senator's other assertion that the childcare sector is in chaos is utter nonsense. I suggest he asks J.E.Y.A. (Jersey Early Years Association) who we work closely with, and others, whether they think they are in chaos. Perhaps if the Senator had attended many, or any, of the public meetings involving childcare over the past 3 years he might have a different view. Of course, the Senator is critical of me for, in his view, failing to respond

appropriately to concerns over the alleged child protection failures he raised. I stand by my actions. As soon as the Senator raised such concerns I immediately agreed to and insisted on their being an independent inquiry into his claims and I reviewed all child protection issues under my purview to be satisfied that any concerns were historic and children today were not knowingly currently at risk. What I refused to do was to condemn, without evidence, whole swathes of our childcare professionals who are doing a very dedicated job. I refuse to condemn them on the say so of Senator Syvret without any evidence. I repeatedly asked him for hard evidence of current problems and issues. All I seemed to get in reply was the: "Get out, it is self evident." No, it was not and it is not. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty and I await Andrew Williamson's report to the States, his independent review, later this week. The Senator also said that both I and the Home Affairs Minister did not support the appointment of the current chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee. Wrong again. What both I and Senator Kinnard did not support was the summary sacking of the previous chair of the committee without any consultation and that Senator Syvret not only did that but appointed a new chair without seeing fit to consult either Senator Kinnard and myself as Members with him of the corporate parent of the Children's Executive. Senator Syvret's excuse in one of his many vituperative emails for not consulting Senator Kinnard and myself was that Senator Kinnard and I were hopelessly conflicted because of our positions. Yet, apparently, Senator Syvret, who had been responsible for child protection for the previous 8 years was not. In fact a letter sent to Senator Syvret from Senator Kinnard and myself states: "From the information which you have provided the new chair (and I say that instead of using the name) would seem eminently qualified." In that letter we also asked to meet the new chair at the earliest possible opportunity, which we did. She has our full support. I refer briefly to the general accusations made by the Senator against the Council of Ministers as a whole, or should I say the whole political system of the Island for the past 3 decades as a whole. Senator Syvret wants to sweep it all away. I note, the Senator did not seek to sweep it all away or bring a vote of no confidence in the Council of Ministers when he was a Member of the Council of Ministers for 18 months, so what has

changed? The only material change is Senator Syvret is no longer a Minister. It would appear to me, that Senator Syvret does not so much have no confidence in the Council of Ministers as such as have no confidence in the States as a whole. It was the States, all of us, who the Senator has referred to as clowns on more than one occasion in his emails. It was the States, all of us, who sacked him as a Minister. It was the States as a whole, all of us, who elected this Council of Ministers which he now wants to sack. But unfortunately for the Senator he cannot do what I am sure he would really like to do, and that is bring a vote of no confidence in the States as a whole. Why does the Senator want to sweep away the whole political establishment, the States as a whole? Why? Because we the States consistently refuse to accept his view of the world. Some Members who have spoken have expressed concerns about the ministerial system of government. Some of those concerns which I share. I certainly do not believe we have got the system absolutely right yet and we need to be more inclusive involving States Members in Council of Ministers' thinking and deliberations. But that is a totally separate issue to a vote of no confidence in the Council of Ministers. Some Members may also have some concerns about the actions of individual Ministers, but again this is a separate issue to a vote of no confidence in the Council of Ministers as a whole. There is no suggestion that this Council of Ministers has got everything right and has not made any mistakes. But, I do not believe any case has been made for a vote of no confidence in the current Council of Ministers and I urge Members to reject it.

6. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier :

A very short while ago we heard speech from Senator Shenton that was very much a hearts and minds speech, it was very powerful. I intend to speak in a much more measured way because I do not think that it does much good to have that kind of speech, although a very good speech it was, and I applaud him for the quality of the speech, if nothing else. So to be a little bit more measured, and I hope both sides in this will appreciate that I am trying to be as measured as possible. I think Senator's Syvret's proposition basically falls into 2 categories. There is the general performance of the Council of Ministers and then there is the Haut de La Garenne and the child abuse part of it, which I think in its own right is a separate section. So let us just talk first of all about the general performance. There have been some mistakes. The T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services), Victoria Avenue, for example, is one. The Jersey College for Girls' sale is another. But I think generally it is the overall policies, such as immigration, economic, fiscal policy, the waterfront that the Senator really takes issue with. However, in the absence of party politics it is the strategic plan where the States sorts out policy for the 3 year life of this Assembly. So unless the Council of Ministers have strayed from that blueprint, and there were many amendments at the time - that were passed at that time - unless it has - and in my view I do not think it has strayed to any great extent - I am afraid that test of a vote of no confidence must fail in my book. I do not think the Council of Ministers has strayed very far from the strategic plan that we as an Assembly agreed. So let us move on a little bit. I think though there is the question of style that goes along with this Council of Ministers and their general performance. When I talk about style I am talking about principally the Chief Minister, Senator Walker , who is perhaps not trusted as much as he could be. He has tried in the last 2 years to address that but unfortunately the die was cast 6 to 8 years ago and once a particular style is set it is difficult to break it down. My own view is that he missed a huge trick when he did not submit himself for election 2 and a half years ago. It would have been a riskier path to take in terms of his personal political ambition but I believe that he would have gained trust and admiration from sections of the electorate that unfortunately he still does not have full trust from at this point. I think he missed a trick. I would have been a brave move to take but I believe he missed a trick there. The paradox is that if Senator Walker is not trusted by sections of the electorate, he is actually trusted by States Members. He is trusted because of his team leading strengths, his close quarters communication skills and generally those kinds of issues. The paradox is that Senator Syvret is probably trusted by that same large section of the electorate just referred to, although probably not by all sections but, nevertheless, Senator Syvret is not trusted by States Members who recognise his shortcomings in terms of interpersonal skills, these are often hidden

from the public, and perhaps his lack of team leading and motivational skills generally. So that is the paradox. But we must return now really to the central motivation that lies behind Senator Syvret's vote of no confidence. That is, of course, the Haut de La Garenne child abuse inquiry. I doubt that without that we would not be sitting here together at the moment discussing a vote of no confidence. It is, of course, tied and linked to the Senator's sacking from the Counsel of Ministers and the circumstances that surround that and the ensuing child abuse inquiry, et cetera. It resulted in a public relations debacle. I suppose many of us felt that for Senator Syvret to have stayed in the Council of Ministers for 18 months was a miracle in itself. Senator Walker and Senator Syvret are about as far apart politically as you can get. Perhaps Senator Syvret, in hindsight, would have been a better scrutineer. The Senator accuses the Council of Ministers in his motion of ineptitude. When I talk about the public relations debacle that followed the announcement of the police inquiry, I believe that Senator Syvret is, in this instance, right. Leaving aside the political dangers of finally getting rid of the Senator after several false starts over something as sensitive as child abuse and the performance of the officers involved in child protection, and the Senator's handling of that, we were then treated, after a short phony war, to probably the most damaging political fallout I think I can remember in the last 30 years. Much more damaging than necessary because for a period of time the personal political egos of the Council of Ministers in general, and the Chief Minister in particular, took precedence over sound public relations common sense. This was not in the public interest. One would have thought that someone with Senator Walker 's history and experience of the media would have known better. One P.R. (public relations) and media disaster led to further compounding and more P.R. disasters. It is not sufficient to give us a reason. The fact is that Senator Syvret was deliberately trying his best to create such media events and stir up controversy. It takes 2 to tango. In public relations terms, this was always clearly a no win for the Council of Ministers and a no win for the Island. The spectacle of 2 of Jersey's senior politicians publicly falling out over something like a child abuse inquiry for a time created an added unwelcome newsworthiness dimension that was, in itself, totally unnecessary and self defeating. But what about Senator Syvret's part in this debacle. I have made the accusation of political ego taking precedence over public interest. Senator Syvret must shoulder at least some of this blame, although no doubt he will say that it was in the public interest, and the victims of child abuse possibly, that he create as much noise in the media as possible. But one cannot help but notice the similarity in political ego terms between his position and that of Senator Walker . It is the plain truth to say that all politicians have egos. A strong ego is a necessary defence mechanism against the criticism that any politician must endure. But the problem comes when ego overrules public interest. So it is difficult to support a motion of no confidence when you are not totally confident in the motives of the bringer of that motion. On this point, for me anyway, Senator Syvret's motion fails to win my vote. Traditionally a successful motion bringer of a no confidence motion inherits

the job of the politician he brings down. Should Senator Syvret be Chief Minister? Absolutely not. Should Senator Syvret stay in the States? Probably, in my view, with a caveat. I will come to that. The Senator's contribution to Island politics is that no one in power can afford to sit comfortably and that is just as it should be. Those with ambition to hold the reins of power should recognise that and accept it. Here is the caveat. If only Senator Syvret would learn that modifying some of his language would be much more likely to achieve his political goals and ambitions, then I believe he would be a much, much better States Member. But he is right about one thing, the very fact that we are sitting here today, listening in part to the Council of Ministers defending their record, is entirely healthy, and as he says in many mature democracies this is likely to be a fairly regular occurrence and should be treated with that kind of attitude. We should not be afraid of it. However, we must be sure that personal agendas are not the driving force of this kind of motion. If they are the bringer of the motion must expect rough treatment from this Assembly and quite likely from the public at the ballot box.

7. Senator T.J. Le Main:

What I really have to respond to is Senator Syvret's speech but really, he cannot be allowed to continue to wreak havoc, cause concerns to many Jersey people with his continued totally irrational behaviour and his continued forays to the U.K. and crying on the shoulders of U.K. M.P.s (Members of Parliament) who are no friends of the people of Jersey. This is the same Senator who was in charge of Health and Social Services for 8 years, who did nothing about child abuse or concerns, the same Senator who did not visit Greenfields or any of the other issues as said by Senator Shenton. This is the same Senator who had turned upon his loyal Jersey employees. I sat on the Health and Social Services for a number of years and at one stage was Vice President, so I have worked with all these employees. These employees have devoted their lives to working for the good of the people of Jersey. He accuses staff, civil servants and others, of cover ups, lies and much more. We have asked him: "Where is the evidence?" Of course he cannot prove or provide evidence. I stand up here today defending these people that are falsely accused by the Senator with all his allegations. It is really unfair when people cannot defend themselves against malicious allegations. This is a Senator, who in my opinion worked well with the Chief Minister and his co- Ministers up to the time of his behaviour, which was a cause for concern. It was this Assembly who dismissed him from his post as Health Minister. You have only got to look, at the lies and absolute garbage that the Senator posts on his blog site. I just cannot understand how he has managed to get away with it, how nobody has sued him for defamation. It is the most ridiculous unparliamentary behaviour that I have ever seen by a States Member or any Member of Parliament or otherwise in the 30 years I have been a Member of this House. I ask Members, is this the action of someone who claims to represent the people of Jersey? He may, yes, but most people I speak to, are very concerned at his behaviour and continued attacks on everyone: the Governor, the Bailiff , the A.G. (Attorney General), the judiciary. He runs down Members of this Assembly and treats them with scorn. This is the same Senator that signed up to the strategic plan and many of the States policies agreed by this Assembly. Now, he disagrees with them as failed policies pursued by the Council of Ministers. In his proposition, Senator Syvret complains about housing policies. But just like several other Members who will not come to the Housing Population Department for explanations on policies he may disapprove of or fail to understand. Senator Syvret has had numerous invitations over the years to attend information presentations on policy changes, et cetera, but he has never attended. In fact in all the years that I have been involved with Housing, which is probably about 14 or 15 years, I cannot remember ever him representing a constituent at Housing. There are very many people who rely on the stability of this Government, on full employment, the reputation of being a fair, safe place to live and work, with a judiciary and regulatory system second to none. This has been dented recently by the actions of this man. He has had attacks on virtually everyone he disagrees with. He has forays, as I say, crying to Jack Straw, Austin Mitchell and others who would close down our well regulated finance industry tomorrow. An industry which brings huge benefits for Health, Education, and much of it feeds through from that industry down to the ordinary man in the streets. It is quite obvious his behaviour will continue. He is a man hell-bent on destruction. I ask but why, it is his Jersey people, why is he hell-bent on destroying them? Senator Walker was absolutely correct when he

said: "He is trying to shaft Jersey." No truer words said. Of course we have other Members of this Assembly who represent themselves at election time as independents and then come into this Assembly as members of a party. These people, also, in my view, are not friends of Jersey. They are no friends of our main industry, finance. Deputy Baudains said: "How long can we ignore public opinion?" But whose public opinion? The public opinion I get from the majority of the people, yes, there are some concerns but the public opinion that I receive, is they do not support Senator Syvret and a majority of the people in this Island do not support him or some of the other party members. They do not, in my view, have respect for our culture and traditions, of which as a Jerseyman I am so proud. They get rid of the Connétable s, the link between the people in the Parishes and this Assembly ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Senator, will you come back to the proposition? Your views on Members of the Assembly that may be members or may not be members of different parties has absolutely nothing to do with this proposition, Senator.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I am coming back, I am on it already. I would like to say that we have Senator Syvret and one or 2 others who would get rid of the Connétable s. They want to get rid of the Bailiff , our Dean, our gracious and respected Governor, and much more. I cannot finish without saying that in listening to some of these Members speaking about my particular portfolio of housing issues, I am amazed how so out of touch they are with the reality of the issues they raised. They were totally and are opposed to current States approved housing policies, the Property Plan was one example. I ask Members who heard these Members yesterday on the subject of housing to please speak to me because they were so wrong and made speeches which were untrue, or they just do not understand. While on my feet I have to say that Members of the Assembly who belong to parties, if allowed to get away with it, including Senator Syvret, will destroy the culture and traditions of this Island. We need to make sure that this does not happen their give it all away policies, their tax on wealthy and wealth.

Senator S. Syvret: Point of order, Sir.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

No I am not prepared to .. there is no point of order.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The Senator made a point of order, which may require a ruling from the Chair so could you please regain your seat, for a moment.

Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, my understanding is that Members cannot make false assertions about other Members. I just wonder whether Senator Le Main could name which party he imagines me to be a member of.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I did not say you were a member of a party, I said members of a party and Senator Syvret, if you listen carefully.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I understood your comment, Senator, to imply that Senator Syvret was a member of a party.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I am sure my speech will no doubt offend one or 2 Members of the Assembly but I have a duty to the thousands of people who voted for me, who trusted me with their vote at the last election, that I need to fight their corner and the corner of the employees in the public sector that are being castigated and accused of lies and cover ups without any evidence from the Senator. It is clearly the Senator's intention to bring down this States Assembly. The way he treats people, they way he calls us idiots, and everybody is an idiot and a clown, et cetera, and I just have to stand to support our loyal employees who cannot defend themselves. Senator Syvret is quite clear that the policies promoted by current political initiatives of the Council of Ministers, he wants to bring down. Finally I would like to say that I congratulate the Bailiff and his Liberation Day speech and also his welcoming speech for the new Assistant Magistrate last week. Well done, I hope you are listening. [Laughter] Finally, I am totally fed up with the current destruction tactics being promoted by Senator Syvret. It is not about getting rid of the Council of Ministers, it is all about getting rid of this Government and he is right and everybody else is wrong. I will not be supporting this proposition, as you can imagine. [Laughter]

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

When I came into the States Chamber yesterday I had the intention of perhaps supporting the proposition based on 2 issues. Firstly, the appalling fiasco over the second part of the waterfront debate in which it is obvious that Ministers were misled or were totally ignorant of the information which they should have had in their possession. Secondly, because of the fact that the Council of Minister is signed up to an environmentally flawed policy relying on a grotesque Energy from Waste plant coupled with a miniscule recycling rate of 36 per cent. The policy as proposed by the Transport and Technical Services Minister and supported by the Council of Ministers is destined to go down in history as the biggest political and environmental mistake ever undertaken in Jersey. The Chief Minister launched his environmental initiative recently, and I was there at the Royal Hotel, but his continued support of the Transport and Technical Service proposals is illogical and flies in the face of environmentally friendly Jersey. Before spending £105 million of taxpayer's money, as far as I am aware, not even one of the Members of the Council of Ministers has been to look at alternative waste recycling systems. If you were going to go out and buy a car you might go and look at 3 or 4 different cars before you decided which one to buy. We should, as the Environment Scrutiny Panel suggest, be moving towards a recycling rate in excess of 50 per cent and having an environmentally friendly processing plant. I feel that this is the biggest issue facing the Island. The course of action that we take on the Energy from Waste plant versus greater recycling and an environmentally friendly plant defines Jersey in the European context. The rest of Europe is aiming for higher recycling rates. Jersey is going in the opposite direction; a measly 36 per cent, only raised from 33 per cent because of pressure from the Scrutiny Panel. Yesterday when I suggested to a Minister, admittedly, before I heard Senator Syvret's speech, that I was contemplating support of the proposition so as to send a shot across the bows of the Council of Ministers, I was asked if I still wanted to be an Assistant Minister. If it is just to lick the boots of others, the answer is no. [Approbation] If it is to give my opinion on policy and to be of value to the Government and to my Island, then yes. The problem, though, for me was that Senator Syvret's proposition, when he presented it, was brought for all the wrong reasons. He obviously has a massive chip on his shoulder and is severely affected by his removal as Health Minister. Even then, I think he does not recognise that he could not have continued in office. How could he have continued in office when he was at such loggerheads with his senior staff? It would not have worked. I think he still does not see it that way. The Haut de la Garenne horror is still being investigated by police and we must have confidence that the police will prosecute those who have acted inappropriately. The current police investigation is strictly beyond the scope of this Assembly, but what we can do is reconfirm that we are totally against child abuse of any sort and

ensure that our future systems and procedures in relation to childcare and child protection are of the very highest quality. Where do I go with my vote? Senator Syvret's speech did not inspire me. It was more a lament on the method of his removal from office and convinces me that he will lose this vote of no confidence. If I vote in favour of the proposition it is merely to demonstrate my total disapproval of the Harcourt scenario; not the Waterfront Masterplan. I admit, I favour the Waterfront Masterplan, but the Harcourt scenario, where Harcourt think that they can get away with not providing information to the States, I totally disapprove of that. I do today want to register my total disapproval of the waste strategy and my total disapproval of the fact that when we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds the Council of Ministers do not even go and look at the alternatives. It is not just £105 million because there are a lot of other add-on costs to that as well. It is probably closer to £150 million that will be invested in the whole plant and management. This is one of the biggest expenses that the Island has to undertake. I do seriously believe that the waste debate coming up shortly should be delayed and that the Council of Ministers should really concentrate on whether it is the right strategy because I believe it is currently a totally flawed strategy. If I thought it was going to be a close vote today I might have abstained from voting, but I

think this vote is going to be lost. I have no desire to see the Council of Ministers removed from office. I did like some of the concepts, that Ministers should be shuffled every now and again because sometimes they do get a bit stale in their positions. That is something that should be looked at. I am going to vote with the proposition today purely to demonstrate that I feel that the waste strategy is totally flawed and that it is the worst decision that the Council of Ministers will ever undertake. I also want to prove that not all Assistant Ministers are boot lickers. [Laughter]

9. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Following on from the previous speaker, quite a lot of his sentiment I could agree with, although I think the waste debate is for another day and some of the Harcourt criticism is probably better levied at W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) than the Council. I would just like to pick up on a point that Deputy Baudains raised. He asked a question about whether he was satisfied with the Council of Ministers. I have to say that I am not entirely satisfied with things as they are now, but that does not mean I am going to support this motion. There are a number of things about the way the Council of Ministers operates which still cause me concern nearly 3 years into this new system of government. None of these will be solved by this motion. They are more the domain of the ongoing Machinery of Government Review, and that is where they should be dealt with. Deputy Baudains sought to negate the potential disruption to our government by a complete reorganisation at this stage in the term of government. He asks: "When is the right time to bring such a motion?" The answer should be that just as the ministerial system needs to mature, so the non-executive must also continue to evolve to gear up to make an even evermore robust and valuable contribution so that more and more the Council of Ministers' policies come to this House for debate in a well- rounded and inclusive format where the major questions have been aired before the debate and where all Members are enabled to make constructive criticism. In such a scenario we should not arrive at such a drastic situation where a blanket vote such as this is necessary in order to rein in the Council. We would be able to target deficient Ministers with a sniper's rifle and not this scattergun. Again, this is more the domain of the Machinery of Government Review. I believe in fact that to contemplate a whole-scale reshuffle now .. and make no mistake, it would be a reshuffle for all of us, because if the Council goes the Assistant Ministers go. If you want change then you have to break up Scrutiny to fill those ranks. Everything we have worked so hard for in Scrutiny, everything .. after 3 years, I am just finding my feet into effective Scrutiny. Scrutiny is becoming more and more valuable. The panel I am on has got a huge work programme that we are determined to bring before the end of this term. This would completely negate everything we have been working for. It would also either mean that policies that are tabled now would go through, or they would be withdrawn, or they would not be properly scrutinised. Either way, that is just not the right way to govern this Island. Senator Syvret is at least honest in his report when he says that it does not have to succeed; even if it does not succeed it achieves his major aim of exposing the supporters of the establishment. To bring this kind of proposal for that reason, and knowing the disruption it would cause, has to be questioned by every reasonable Member. Let me say to the Senator, any questioning, let me make it clear where my support lies. I love this Island. I am happy and I feel privileged to have such a stable and safe environment in which to bring up my family. I am grateful that our economic strength means that my children, like everyone else's children, will have a better than even chance of gaining good employment in a range of trades when they leave their excellent state schools or finish university, if they choose to go. The fact that they have that choice is something that we should be proud of. I am conscious that we have to take difficult decisions for robust reasons in order to secure long-term security for the standards of care and the standard of living that we have come to expect. That, I am afraid, is just the burden of being a States Member. It is what you have to take on board when you come here. The fact that these unpopular decisions, as well, of course, as the less contentious ones, are the result of Council of Ministers' proposals is incidental. It is an obvious effect of executive government. It is just simply how it was designed to work. The fact that the proposals are adopted by a House in which the Executive has an engineered minority - again, thanks to the previous speaker - must mean that

there is simply no viable alternative identified and put forward at the time of debate. I will continue to take decisions on a case-by-case basis, regardless of who brings them, based on their merit and their long-term effect on my Island and with the benefit of as much impartial background advice as I can gather from whatever source. I will not be bullied into popular short-termist voting to the detriment of my Island by anyone, including Senator Syvret.

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

I rise on behalf of the marginalised and the Sitting on the Fence Party. [Laughter] I would like to congratulate the Deputy of St. Mary, even though I totally disagree with the conclusions that she reached, but I thought she put it very well. I have struggled, like a lot of people in this debate, between the issue of whether the Council should be held to account and there is no doubt that political accountability does not work. I did have an answer, which was totally ignored by other people, from the Chief Minister a few weeks ago on that matter where he did say it was working and if I did not like it I was to send my proposals to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), which was a fairly standard answer, I should add. This is how it is working. The second thing is, the great cloud over this debate, of course, the suitability of the so-called Chief Minister in waiting, which is, I have said, for example, Senator Le Main. I think, the Council of Ministers is like a curate's egg. I think the Chief Minister and his team .. the Chief Minister in particular, he is a very, very hard worker. He is an absolutely committed worker. I think he takes  loyalty to extremes, and people like me have suffered from that because what it means is you cannot get mature political debate because there is this limited definition of what is loyal and what is not loyal. That, sadly, has gone through Jersey politics a long time and you have some spectacular victims of that. I suppose Norman Le Brocq would be one of the major ones, for example. That is something I do not like, but I certainly do admire the work rate, I do admire the dedication and the absolute commitment, even if at times, it is misdirected. It is like a curate's egg. The point remains, if you go around, and Senator Le Main and ourselves - and I was with him the other afternoon - we do sometimes speak to the same people, but clearly we are getting different views from them. The view of the public is, of course, that it is a government disconnected and it goes beyond whinging. We know Jersey people have a legendary reputation for whinging and complaining and never being terribly happy with the world. Go a bit further, rather like Senator Walker 's taxi driver, and essentially they are happy, even though that taxi driver no doubt rewrote the whole policy of Jersey from town to the airport. No doubt if you were to go to Gorey you would also get world peace thrown in and a solution to the Zimbabwe issue and so forth. I only generally manage to make it to town or the airport. It is a government disconnected from the electorate. As Deputy Power said, the real difference between this and the usual moan and the usual bunch of discontent on the margins of Jersey politics that can usually be written off as professional malcontents, is that traditional Jersey has climbed on the bandwagon, and they are much unhappier with what is happening. Why they are unhappy, is while they would no doubt buy into the general thrust of what the Council is doing, they bought into this view, which of course has been perpetuated since I suppose the Jersey Progressive Party became the dominant party in 1948, that business people have to run the Government because they knew how to run things. That is what is really disillusioning them; that they have a group of business people essentially dominant in the Government and they see a government that is not terribly efficient. They cannot also grapple with the fact, as cannot Deputy Ferguson, that we have not, in their view, managed to make cutbacks. People who brought up ideas like Mr. Keen and other people, they have essentially been rubbished for their efforts, so to speak, and they are really, really worried. Also, they are worried while they have gone along with growth and the impetus to growth that people like the Economic Development Minister dedicate themselves to, they feel that the limits to growth have been reached in the terms that it has really started to undermine very clearly - as opposed to sort of a low-level moaning way - the things that they value. They really believe that it is undermining the very basis of what they hold dear and that is a very worrying issue. I think they are just worried because of this .. despite the enormously energetic efforts of people like Senator Ozouf , they are just worried about the one-horse economy

in which we find ourselves. It is this disconnection from the electorate, and it is getting worse and worse. Part of the problem, I am afraid, is the Government does believe in spin and we have reached a situation, where it believes in its own spin. That is always, to be polite, Mr. Blair realised, a very dangerous situation because then you get sort of self-referencing where basically you keep convincing yourself you are right, you only speak to people who tell you you are right, and your little world becomes, in a sense, narrower and narrower and more and more self-enclosed. The electorate do feel that and the traditional electorate feel that. We would be wrong, as was Senator Le Main despite his great inroads into that electorate, to conclude that everybody still thinks things are wonderful because that is not the way they think. The other thing that has happened, is the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister, they are very good at tactical victories and tactical advantages. Some of it reflects itself in what Deputy Baudains, in the press a few weeks ago, described as this bullying style. I am afraid, - and both the Chief Minister and Senator Syvret are brilliant, but utterly misguided exponents - we have had the politics of the street fighter dominating Jersey politics in the last few months and that is really distressing a lot of the electorate. Not only in the sense why are you spending so much time squabbling with each other, but why is it so ugly? Why is it so vindictive? That is really, really upsetting people in large parts. We can have all these tactical victories, we can marginalise people, we can bully people, but ultimately it does visit itself upon you if you engage in those tactics. Obviously, politics no longer becomes authentic, you do not have proper debates, it just becomes a question of cynical manoeuvring. I am afraid, both the Chief Minister - to an extent is an exponent - or the Council, some of his Members are an exponent of that art, as is, probably the best exponent of all, Senator Syvret, who is undoubtedly one of the most shrewd and cunning politicians Jersey has had for a long time. Whether that results in the promotion of the public interest is of course another matter. This polarisation, what it has done, it has destroyed .. I used to have a lot of debates and I never quite believed the former Deputy Dubras about consensus. He was a great believer in consensus government and, as we all know, we used to have these great meetings where we all examined our navel and found out the common ground and so forth. They used to go on for a long time, just like States sittings. I have come to the conclusion, that is what has been destroyed: consensus government. Partly it has happened because of ministerial government, of which I have been a supporter, but I was never a supporter of ministerial government without the democratic reforms. Unfortunately, as we all know, we have not had those. It has destroyed consensus, it has polarised the community, and it has led to the self-enclosed nature of this Council of Ministers. Senator Syvret might well argue, and he might well have a point - as Deputy Duhamel did yesterday - there comes a time in any organisation where you need, for want of a better term, a cathartic experience, you need to shake things up, you get too complacent. I would agree with him. I would not agree with Senator Syvret's scorched-earth policy and nihilism where he seems to be, as Senator Le Main did say, totally moving in the direction that there has to be a scorched-earth policy in the hope that some green shoots of grass will reappear and there will be good-minded people to take over the system. I think it will lead, ultimately, to destruction. It will lead to total collapse. I do not think we will ever reach there. Deputy Duhamel did make a point; what is so unusual about governments falling out of favour? Most countries, have elections. As in Britain at the moment, you are seeing this increasing disillusionment with government and there will be an election and perhaps there will be a change. There is nothing wrong with this; this happens. People want new personalities and it is as much about personality sometimes as it is about policy. I do not see why we are so afraid.

We talk and talk - as did Senator Walker in his answer to me the other week, his written answer how everything is working perfectly well with political accountability - about it, but quite clearly, we are unable to take that final step towards political accountability and say: "There is another way forward." That brings me, to another paradox of the system. It was a system designed for political parties and if you have political parties, of course, you have the chance of alternative policies. Sadly, we do not. We have still got this notion, as expounded by Senator Le Main, that you have to have loyalty, but it just happens we have another different set of policies; tough luck if you do not agree with those policies. It would, obviously, be a much better way of operating the system if we

had political parties. As Senator Le Main has made clear, any whisper of parties, particularly left- wing parties, of course, brings the wrath of God, almost, upon one. That brings me to the issue of There has been a lot of talk and Deputy Ryan, engaged in his amateur psychoanalysis about Senator Syvret's role. There is this feeling that Senator Syvret is on the road to martyrdom and he does want us to sue him, he does want us, again, to throw him out. He wants to cement his relationship with the electorate because he sees us as a bunch of total idiots. The problem is, if we are to look seriously at this we have to look at Senator Syvret as the next Chief Minister, or he may have another person - I do not know, perhaps he could speak to this - as the next Chief Minister. Because we really have to say to ourselves: "Can you lead us to your new Jerusalem? What is your vision of the world?" Senator Syvret did make a lot of compromises with the establishment and I do remember, although it was never re-quoted, when I asked, for example, when the allegations about Senator Syvret's links with Attac came and I asked the Chief Minister a question, did he and the Senator have major differences on tax policy, the Chief Minister said: "No." He said essentially there were no differences. I did notice when the Senator was arguing for G.S.T. and so forth, with exemptions, that he was moving towards the middle ground with a lot of the Council's policies. Although it suits him at the moment to put himself at the extreme, perhaps the extremes are not as great as he would say. It is slightly off the point, but like others, I have to say I do give credit to the Senator for the work he has done, the bravery, sometimes misplaced, in moving this issue forward and his attempt to break through, which I think has gone crazy, I have to say, but at least his initial attempt to break through what he sees as the complacency and the stagnation of the system. I have been horrified, by the findings on various sites and in the paper of people guilty before they are tried. [Approbation] I have been horrified. If, the Senator is to be our Chief Minister, I want a commitment from him, not only for these victims for which he has rightly been fighting, I want a commitment from him that these people who have been identified and found guilty in all sorts of ways without any chance to reply, that they are going to be put through normal processes and given the right. Because it is a test of any criminal justice system that the most - and I have worked in this system for some years - odious people in society get the right to a fair trial and get the right to have the evidence against them put properly. They are not subject to political barracking and to politicking and so forth. I want that commitment, from the Senator if he is putting himself, as he is, as the putative Chief Minister. This notion, that people are found guilty because the Senator has examined the evidence and found them guilty, I find horrifying. It is a form of Calvinist sort of authoritarianism which absolutely makes me despair and I think it undermines the very values which quite rightly the Senator has committed himself to fighting for. That is my little Senator Shenton debate, thank you. Yes, there is more, thank you, Senator Vibert , although I am not going to go through a list of the guilty, you will be glad to hear; of the politically guilty. Just to sum up, I think .. and I have tried to separate out the no-confidence motion from the personality of the person pushing it because it is so easy to bring the 2 together and to reach a conclusion. I think the Senator, is fully entitled to say so. I do suspect, as I think Deputy Troy said, part of the reason for this is that a list of the guilty will be produced at the next election, i.e. those who did not vote for it; that is obviously part of the motive. It is right that the Council of Ministers be held to account. It is right that we examine policies; we are very poor at doing this. It would be nice to know, we could get away from the kind of terrible, vindictive, incestuous and horribly negative in-fighting that has dominated Jersey politics for the last month. That said, I think the Senator is right to answer it, but I want to hear, what the Senator's way forward is. Without a vision the people perish. I certainly felt in the speech yesterday I was perishing at a fast rate without a vision. What is the Senator's vision? Other than a Jersey where everybody leaves, finance collapses, we all put a cow in the back garden and we return to some kind of bucolic paradise. What is the vision of the Senator? I know he does have ideas and I wish they would be re-emphasised. That is what I want to hear, rather than to just descend into total chaos.