States Meeting Transcript - 17/06/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 17th JUNE 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

1. Committee of Inquiry into the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Rourke (P.76/2009)............4

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):............4
2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................4

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................5
2. Senator S. Syvret:........................................................................5
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................5
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :....................................................................5
5. Deputy T. Pitman of St. Helier:..........................................................6
6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................6
7. The Deputy of Trinity (the Minister for Health and Social Services):....................6
8. Connétable P.F. M. Hanning of St. Saviour : .............................................6
9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................6
10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:........................................................7
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:................................................7
12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:.................................................8
13. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:......................................................8
14. Senator S. Syvret:.....................................................................9
15. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:............................................................9
16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................10
17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................10
18. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................10
19. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................11
20. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................11
21. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................11
22. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................11

2. Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005: proposed changes (P.54/2009)....................13

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):........................13

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................14
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................15
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................15
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................15

3. Rent Control Tribunal: appointment of Chairman and Members (P.65/2009)........16

3.1 Deputy S. Power (Assistant Minister for Housing - rapporteur).........................16

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................17
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................17
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................17

4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................17

5. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................17
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................18
7. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................18
8. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................18

4. States Employees Standing for Election: use of annual leave and time off in lieu (P.66/2009)...............................................................................20

4.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................20

1. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................23
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................23
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................24
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................24
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................24
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................25
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................25
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................25
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................26
10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................26

5. Insolvency: Temporary Scheme for Compensatory Payment – Extension (P.67/2009) ...........................................................................................27

5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28

1. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................29
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................29
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................30

6. Draft Companies (Takeovers and Mergers Panel) (Jersey) Law 2009 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.90/2009).....................................................................31

6.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................31

7. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of members (P.92/2009)............32

7.1 The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......32

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................33
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................33
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................33
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................33
5. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................34

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................34

8. The Connétable of St. Mary (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):.......34

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................35
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................35
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................35
5. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................35
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................35
7. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................37
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................37
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................38
11. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................38
12. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................38

13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................39
14. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................39
15. Deputy P.V.P. Le Claire: ...............................................................39
16. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................39

17. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................39
18. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................39
19. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................40
20. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
21. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40
22. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................40
23. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................40
24. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................41
25. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................41
26. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................41
27. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................41
28. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................41
29. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................41
30. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................41
31. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................42
32. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................42

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................42

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Committee of Inquiry into the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Rourke (P.76/2009)

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services):

Before we go on, as I mentioned yesterday in question time, I am very much aware of the concerns that Members have regarding the next proposition, P.76, and I see that Verita have agreed to do a presentation to States Members and they will come over next week. I feel that this is so important that States Members can make an informed decision prior to any debate. So, with that in mind, I am in Members' hands.

The Deputy Bailiff :

When you say you are in Members' hands, are you ..?

2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

If I might say something? Having heard what the Deputy of Trinity has just said, I was considering when to speak to propose a deferment of the debate on P.76, and having heard what the Minister for Health and Social Services has just said, I think that now is the moment, if I might be permitted? I was contacted over the weekend by the late Mrs. Rourke's widower who in his gentle way told me of his distress at the prospect of the whole matter being put back into the spotlight this week in the course of a States debate. He explained that he had been fully involved in the decision to undertake the Verita review, and was supportive of that being allowed to run its course. He was very concerned that there should be no undue delay, and I am sure he is, of course, looking for closure on this tragic incident in his life. He also pointed out that via the internet media, which naturally picks up each new incident such as would be aroused by the proposition, his family are continually being troubled by speculation. There is no respite for these people, and especially for Mr. Rourke who has suffered enough, surely. I have been in contact with this gentleman; I do not believe that Senator Syvret has been in contact with him, at least up until the weekend. I would ask Members to consider the feelings and the privacy of this man today, and to show their compassion for him by agreeing to defer the debate on this proposition for 2 weeks, which will at least allow Members to attend the Verita presentation we have just been advised of, and to make therefore an informed decision on the merit of the inquiry presently being undertaken. So, I propose a deferment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are proposing that the debate on P.76 be deferred for 2 weeks? The Connétable of St. Mary :

Yes, I am.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is it seconded? [Seconded]

Senator S. Syvret:

Can I make a point of order? In my view this is an abuse of procedure and against the rights of a minority Member. It is also extremely discourteous to the Assembly. We have already had this debate last week to determine that we would debate the matter today, and I do not believe that this proposition should be permitted. The arguments we have just heard were essentially arguments against the proposition, and if that is the way Members feel, they should vote accordingly.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think, Senator, any Member has the right to propose that a matter be deferred, and that is before the Assembly as to whether they agree with it or not. I do not think it is for the chair to rule it out of order.

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

If I can speak on the proposition? There is one way of clearing this, and this is for the Minister for Health and Social Services to accept the proposition. I certainly am disturbed about the facts in the case and, as I say, I think we do need a fully independent review; and perhaps we could carry on with business and perhaps the Minister for Health and Social Services would like to consult with the Chief Minister as to whether this would be possible to accept the proposition?

2. Senator S. Syvret:

May I speak then on the proposition? Obviously I am opposing the deferral proposition. The States Assembly already made this decision quite strongly last week, and frankly it is quite a cynical attempt in the kind of things we have just heard said to prevent the Assembly from doing its duty and grasping this issue. While, of course, the considerations and the concerns of the family are of paramount importance, one of the factors we have to consider, and that I will be addressing in the speech, is that this is not an issue only of concern to that family. This is an issue of concern to everyone throughout our community who has to call upon the services of the hospital. It is addressing broader issues - broader questions of patient safety and clinical governance than the admittedly tragic circumstances of this one individual; we have to bear that broad perspective in mind. If Members do not agree with the proposition, if they do not think it is the right way forward, then Members can say so, or if they do not wish to speak they can remain silent and simply vote against it. But there are fundamentally important issues here which do require public ventilation in the Island's legislature, and it would be quite wrong of us to duck that issue. As I said, I do consider this certainly to be grossly discourteous. I have done, and so have a number of other people in the community, a huge amount of work on this subject, and I have come here prepared to make the case this morning, only to find this political manoeuvre, this device, being used to try and stop the debate. It would be quite irresponsible of the Assembly to delay the debate today - not least because it would also make the Assembly look quite ridiculous. If Verita wish to come and give a presentation to Members in 2 weeks' time, let them do so, but before receiving such a presentation and knowing what to make of it, a lot of Members of this Assembly need to hear a lot of the information. They need to know, they need to be aware, of a lot of the key facts in order to be able to question Verita and independently assess their suitability. Now, a lot of Members will not be in that position if we duck the issue and delay the debate today. This is simply irresponsible politicking, and we should go ahead, have the debate and make a decision.

3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

I can understand where the Minister for Health and Social Services is coming from, but that said, this debate has been tabled now for some time, and as far as I am concerned, I have done my research on this. We have got people who have been suspended for 2½ years who, like the family who have lost a loved one, need a closing to this situation. We have also got on the other side of it, within the hospital, staff who are acting as locums, et cetera, covering people who been suspended now for 2 and a half years. This needs a closure, and I do not believe yet another delay is going to make any difference whatsoever. We should have the debate now and get on with it.

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have sympathy with the sentiments of both the Deputy of St. John and Senator Syvret. I would just say 2 things to both of them. First of all, the Deputy of St. John is not quite right when he says this proposition has been before the Assembly for a long time. It has just been lodged on 29th May. I am not criticising back-benchers' ability to bring propositions with 2 weeks' notice. Other propositions need 6 weeks, and this is obviously an important issue which I would say does need to

lay before the Assembly for some time. I was not in the debate last week when the deferment was suggested. I also think that Senator Syvret is wrong in some of the things that he says. One of the decisions that we are faced with in this proposition is to cease the Verita inquiry - to cease it. He is, I think, inadvertently misleading Members when he is saying that Verita can come and talk to us. We are asked in an hour or so whether or not to cease Verita. In order to make an informed decision, I want to hear Verita before I decide on my own conscience what I want to do in terms of finding the truth - to finding the appropriate independent investigative vehicle to bring appropriate legislative scrutiny to this. I am with the Constable of St. Mary and the Minister for Health and Social Services. I want to hear Verita and then have this debate, and I would imagine that all States Members who would need to decide on Verita would want to do the same.

5. Deputy T. Pitman of St. Helier :

Just to echo everything really that the Deputy of St. John has said. People do need closure on this. We have seen what, in my opinion, amounts to character assassination of some people, and it has gone on far too long. This tactic really is just a wrecking tactic, and I think the Chief Minister should show some leadership and pull his troops into line here. This should be debated. What is the problem with it? One life lost, but many other people's lives have been impacted hugely. We saw deferment just the other week. There is no reason not to have this debate, and I would urge all Members to support that view. Senator Syvret is entirely right on this one.

6. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

We heard not long ago from the Constable of St. Mary that ostensibly the reason that she is putting forward to delay this debate, effectively, is because she does not want to subject the widower of Mrs. Rourke to any further stress. Now, surely, if we are going to delay this presumably for 2 weeks, that is only dragging things out even further. So, surely we should be getting this done now and today. If, really, the reason is that we do not want to put anyone under any undue stress, certainly there are other ways to do that. I did not hear the Constable suggesting that we could have the debate in camera. I am not suggesting that is desirable, but that is certainly one option. We could get it done today in camera if the Assembly thinks it is necessary. Personally, I think it is best to do things in the open, but that is certainly one way to do it. There is also the suggestion that I have had from my colleagues that if Senator Syvret was willing to pull part (e) - I am not sure whether he is - then that might be more agreeable to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and we could have an open and honest debate today, without necessarily prejudging whether Verita should or should not carry on with the investigation that they are already doing. That is all I wanted to say.

7. The Deputy of Trinity (the Minister for Health and Social Services):

My concern, as I said all the way along, is that the truth should come out, and also that some sort of closure for the family and a full, open investigation should take place. Going back to what was said about the deferment that we discussed last week, the deferment was to wait until the report in October, not to defer it for a presentation from Verita. As Senator Ozouf said, it has only been lodged at the very end of May, and since then I think we have been in the States for the last 3 weeks; so, it is very difficult to arrange that. I have asked Verita to come over next week, if the deferment is agreed, for 2 weeks. We will carry on with this proposition in 2 weeks' time. Mention has been made, I do not want to drag it out any longer, and I for one totally endorse that. I would like to see it finished and completed as quickly as possible. But bearing in mind, if Senator Syvret's proposition is approved, it is a Committee of Inquiry, which indeed will take much, much longer

8. Connétable P.F. M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

Deputy Tadier has already made the point I was going to make about withdrawing part (e) decision.

9. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

Those Members who are seeking closure, I can well understand, but I would point out that the implication of a Committee of Inquiry is that closure would be delayed for some considerable time. Committees of Inquiry are a far more formal process, generally having considerable legal implications, and while it may be the right way to proceed - I am not judging that one at this stage - I am simply saying that it is not a quick solution, nor a simple solution, nor a cheap solution. Over the past week or so, I have heard various conflicting views about Verita and about the terms of reference which they have been given, and I think there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion in Members' minds - quite understandably. I think the only way we are going to have a reasonable and rational discussion on this proposition is to be properly informed about Verita's role in what they have been given to do; and I think in order to do that, we have had the proposal that a presentation be made by Verita, or an explanation, if you like, of what they are going to do and how they are going to do it and what other things they may want to say. I think provided that we are talking about a 2-week delay here in which we can hear Verita and then come back and discuss this proposition in an informed way, I believe that that can achieve closure in the same sort of length of time. But whatever it is, we will do it when it will enable us to debate P.76 from a more fully informed process than would otherwise be the case.

10. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin :

I know, speaking from my own point of view as a back-bencher who has brought propositions, and I am concerned at the number of times that a Minister comes to the House at the last knockings with the comments and says: "We need more time." With the greatest respect to the Minister for Health and Social Services, this proposition was lodged on 29th May, which is within the time limit for us to debate it 2 weeks later; and on 2nd June there was quite a comprehensive list of questions that I know the Deputy of St. John posed, and I did as well, about the matter. Now, if I had been a Minister I would have been pulling out all the stops to ensure that everything was done way before the last day, because we had 16th June, and we have now had the comments lodged, the day of the debate - in fact, it is the day before the debate now. At the same time, I just feel this is just another way in which back-benchers are being treated totally unfairly. There has been a fortnight for the Minister for Health and Social Services to pull the finger out to ensure everything was done, and we could have seen Verita within the 2 weeks. I just feel this is another stalling mechanism to delay things.

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

What I feel is, I have no opinion on Verita. All I know is that Verita is an independent, or rather, private company. I have an opinion on a Committee of Inquiry, and that has been formulated through my time in the States, and know that it is one of the most powerful sanctions the States can give to a body of people to investigate a matter. It has supremacy in areas that private companies do not have. It has the ability to call people under oath, and it has the ability to deliver in areas where private companies would be faint-hearted or fearful in examining. What we are being asked in this proposition today by the Constable of St. Mary is to go along and listen to the arguments why we should be continuing with the private company, bolstering support for the private company, and endorsing the private company's conclusion of this issue. I, for one, have had private conversations with doctors and surgeons, and correspondence with doctors and surgeons in the States of Jersey employment at the highest levels, who have told me in no uncertain terms that operating conditions and incidents and matters of serious concern - there is a terminology for a matter of serious concern where a case review is conducted - have been occurring in this Island over the last 18 months. To support what Senator Syvret's arguments were stating about the inadequacy of situations and cover in the general hospital, I have been informed in no uncertain terms by one of the Island's most senior surgeons, and in words of other doctors and surgeons, that practices of shifts were occurring in the States of Jersey that are downright dangerous and would be illegal if they were in the U.K. (United Kingdom). When I asked if I could take this to Scrutiny and sent correspondence to Senator Breckon on this to see if I could get them in front of Scrutiny, I was

told by the surgeons: "Say nothing. I will be put down, put out and put under." That is the way this place works. Now, I have been on the Health Committee and I have been involved in meetings with the Health Committee when we have been misinformed about the state of affairs within the hospital.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , could you please get to the point of this. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am coming to it, Sir. I seriously have grave concern about manoeuvres like now to get us in front of a private company, to make us believe that that is the way to go. The way to go is for a Committee of Inquiry if we want to safeguard the interests of this Island and see those people that have been affected, and possibly could be affected, are best met. We need to press ahead with this debate and, in my view, we need a Committee of Inquiry.

12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

I would like to think that all Members when being called upon to make a decision have enough information on which to base that decision, and certainly - and I think I speak for some others in this respect - I am not happy with my state of enlightenment, or indeed knowledge, on this particular issue. I think it would be wholly wrong, given that we could have a short break to bring over some of the bodies who will be at the centre of the argument, to ask those questions to that body directly. That goes for those persons who will be supporting the view that we should have a Committee of Inquiry and indeed those who are supporting the alternative point of view. If we do not allow ourselves to take this opportunity - and it could be argued that the opportunity should have been provided beforehand, and I think that is a valid point - nonetheless I think to launch today into a debate which will be heated, which will be emotional, and certainly will not be argued from an enlightened point of view on behalf of all of those Members in House who will be called upon to make a final decision, is wrong. So, on that basis, I think I would support a very short delay in bringing forward the debate on this important issue so that all of us in our heart of hearts can search them and agree that we have come and arrived for the right reasons at the right decision.

The Deputy of Trinity :

Can I raise a point of order, Sir? I am very concerned about what Deputy Le Claire said, and his allegations. As I am Minister for Health and Social Services, I think what he said is very serious, and I think he should come and see me with the evidence, because what he said is very serious, and it needs to be looked at.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator Syvret, did you say you want to raise a point of order?

Senator S. Syvret:

Yes, Sir. I think Deputy Duhamel was perhaps misrepresenting my approach to this matter. The Deputy Bailiff :

That is not a point of order.

Senator S. Syvret:

As far as I am concerned, this debate will not be heated, it will not be personalised. It is far too serious a matter to deal with that. It will be dealt with with the appropriate dignity.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is a point of clarification, if I may say so.

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

I think there have been some good points raised, and I have a question. The question is directly to Senator Syvret, and which way I vote depends on it. I think there should be some possible compromise here, because if we accept the proposition as it stands and we decide to go ahead today, (e) says: "Health" and I think that is judging things to tell Health what they can and cannot do, but that is in the proposition. But if Senator Syvret was prepared, what is the problem with having the independent inquiry which is 4 months down the line? They will start their report and present it to the States in September when, even if this proposition without that is passed, we will not even be agreeing the terms of reference until September. So, I would like to hear from the Senator if he is prepared to pull part (e) of this proposition before we go any further with this debate on the proposition.

Senator S. Syvret:

Do you want me to answer that?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, it probably would be helpful to Members, would it not, just to get a short yes or no on it.

14. Senator S. Syvret:

I do not believe in playing games. So, as much as some Members may wish me to take a vote in parts, I am not going to, because the appropriate decision is to support or reject the proposition; and there is a very good reason for that, in that for all kinds of contamination of evidence reasons, it would not be credible to have the Verita inquiry go to its conclusion and then for us after that to set up a Committee of Inquiry. It simply would not work. So, to suggest that course of action is, I am afraid, another diversionary tactic. What we must do is have the debate and make the decision. The decision is, should we have a properly empowered Committee of Inquiry? Now, if Members do not believe that to be appropriate then they will vote against the proposition. But let us not pretend ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Sorry, Senator. I think it is a point of clarification which the .. Senator S. Syvret:

Let us not kid ourselves that that would be an appropriate way forward.

15. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I share, with many other Members of this House, concern in relation to which in particular a doctor has been dealt with here - a very long period of suspension, et cetera - and there are no doubt other concerns that Members have. But I want to reiterate, first of all, the point made by the Chief Minister, that if we go eventually to a Committee of Inquiry, that will not be a quick fix - that indeed will slow down the disciplinary process, et cetera, et cetera. But that is not my main point. My main point is to refer Members to paragraphs (b) and (e) of the proposition. (b) says: "To agree that a nationally recognised healthcare investigatory organisation be invited to undertake the investigation." Now that, in my view, when coupled with (e): "To agree to propose an investigation by Verita should not proceed" implies that Verita is not a nationally recognised healthcare investigatory ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

A point of order, if the Senator would give way: I am just concerned we are straying into the actual proposition here and not ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, we are not, Deputy , at the moment. Thank you. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

We are not, Sir. No. The point that I am trying to make is that it will be of the very essence of the debate, particularly now that Senator Syvret has insisted on taking all parts together, a factual issue as to whether or not Verita is a suitable body to undertake an inquiry. Now, there are also issues - and I understand these will be issues for debate eventually, in any eventuality - as to exactly what sort of inquiry we want. We need, in my view, to be careful that we do not end up with a multiplicity of inquiries, that we are extremely targeted on that, because I think this House is perhaps a little too willing to call for Committees of Inquiry. But my main point remains, the point that (b) and (e) are essential to it, and we do not have the facts.

16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Purely to add that the proposition that we are asked to consider does say that this firm is a Health and Social Care Investigatory Agency second, and a firm of spin doctors first; and I think that if the Minister for Health and Social Services has arranged for us to hear from this firm what they think in 2 weeks' time, I think it is only fair to hear their version of events.

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

I will support it being debated today, even though I do have great reservations about it. But obviously the place to express those reservations is in the debate itself, because I think one of the major issues missing is the issue of political accountability which, of course, speaks to the Minister's role during that period. The other thing I would say is about Verita. We have 2 Ministers: we have the former Minister and we have the current Minister who have been intimately involved in negotiating and progressing the Verita report, and Senator Perchard, for example, has given us some quite detailed explanations of why he went that route, and why he thought it was the best route. It strikes me, in terms of our political accountability, he is able to speak in great detail on that issue, as no doubt will the current Minister. We often go ahead on propositions where we deal with the views of people not directly - not because we have met them in a meeting, but because we have been briefed about them and because we rely on the Ministers to give us that background information, and the reasoning as to why they got involved, for example, with a particular body; and that is how I will do it. I would have to say that the real issue that is probably confusing a lot of us is there is the issue of looking into the immediate matters concerning this case, and there are the issues that have been raised in Senator Syvret's proposition, that essentially - as in a sense was evidenced by Deputy Le Claire's contribution - behind it lies a system that was replete with corruption, bad management practice, deficient organisational structure, et cetera, et cetera. I have to say - and I will obviously express this more fully in the debate and wait to hear how Senator Syvret deals with this - if we are going to move into a massive investigation looking at all manner of things that are going wrong with the Health Service, and in that we are somehow going to wrap up this, I think we will be there for a long, long time, quite frankly; and that in a sense is almost a case for a separate Committee of Inquiry, if indeed there are serious views about the way the Health Department has managed. That is a separate committee. But, as I said, I think Senator Syvret should get his right to move today.

18. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I think Deputy Le Hérissier raised a very, very important point there. As is often the case with much of what Senator Syvret says, there is always a bit of truth. In this case, Senator Syvret has highlighted that there may be problems with the management of consultants and senior management at the hospital. If we go ahead with the very prescriptive terms of reference, as highlighted by Senator Syvret, we will identify the circumstances around the death of Mrs. Rourke. If we were to hear Verita, and Members would be satisfied with the integrity of that company, the impartiality of that company and the professionalism of that company - as I am - let them report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Rourke, and they will uncover no doubt some of the innuendo implied in the proposition made by Senator Syvret. That is the time to have an inquiry into the more generic actions of the hospital - not the specifics around this death. This is very serious; it is very emotional. There are many people involved in this, and I want to say, a conclusion by the end of this year is achievable if Members were satisfied with the integrity and professionalism of Verita. I plead with Members to at least delay the vote for 2 weeks and then make an informed decision thereafter.

19. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I was Minister for Health and Social Services for the period in between the tragic death of Mrs. Rourke and Senator Perchard asking for the Committee of Inquiry. As Minister for Health and Social Services there was very little that you could do in that intervening period because we were waiting for the criminal investigation to take place, and apart from contacting the Attorney General to try and get matters sped up, we had to just wait for the police matters to take their course. While I was Minister for Health and Social Services I did obviously speak to the department, but I also spoke privately to a number of the people that were involved in this tragic case, and I spoke to at least one of them at my home and completely off the record, and until today the department would not even know that I had spoken to them. When you know the facts of the case you will know what tragic circumstances they were - how they spent hours fighting to save Mrs. Rourke's life. There were failings at Health; there were definite failings at Health. There were failings in the human resources area. There were failings with regard to how it was initially investigated. All these things will need to be investigated. But ultimately at the end of the day, the most important person in this is Mr. Rourke, who has been through hell and who works at the hospital as well. Mrs. Rourke was an extremely popular person at the hospital, and it is bad enough to lose someone, but even worse to lose someone that works with you. Now, I came here today with a view of supporting Senator Syvret and the Committee of Inquiry, but I ultimately believe that people come first, and we must take into account the feelings of Mr. Rourke in this, and we must put our politics second for once. Two or 3 weeks will not make a great deal of difference. But Mr. Rourke must come first in this, and I would be voting for deferment.

20. Deputy A.T. Dupré of St. Clement :

I too feel that another 2 weeks is not going to make a big difference. I would like to hear what Verita has to say, and I think we all ought to listen to what they have to say first before we make a decision.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is there anyone who feels they can add something - a new aspect - to this matter? It is only on whether to defer it for 2 weeks, but obviously all Members have the right to speak if they wish to.

21. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I just want your permission, Sir, that if the Chairman of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), the Constable of St. Mary, could reread the note she read at the beginning, because I did not hear all of it - there was some background noise going on on these back benches.

The Deputy Bailiff :

She will be able to reply at the end. Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, then. Do you wish to reply, Connétable ?

22. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I would like to start by saying something categoric. I was contacted at the weekend by Mr. Rourke. We had a long conversation. I considered everything. I re-read Senator Syvret's proposition. I did not know at that time that the Deputy of Trinity , the Minister for Health and Social Services, would be making available a meeting with Verita, and I added that information in when it became known to me this morning. I am extremely concerned. I think it is quite shameful to say this is a political device or wrecking motion. I am responding to the heartfelt communication I  had from the widower of the person concerned and that is the duty of every politician, I think, in this Island, to represent where they see representation is necessary. [Approbation] To say it is a political device or wrecking tactic is purely shameful. I would be grateful if Senator Syvret could refrain from interrupting me, I know he likes to do it but I would really think that this matter deserves a little respect. Many of the things that were said today have been, I think, dealt with incredibly well by Deputy Le Hérissier when he spoke, even though he is not going to support me, the points he raised were very valid. It seems to me that timing is crucial here. We are part way through, a long way through in fact, an inquiry; to introduce a Committee of Inquiry would undoubtedly draw the whole process out leading to more uncertainty for longer. But the points that Deputy Le Claire raised and were echoed by Deputy Le Hérissier, it sounds as if a Committee of Inquiry could be necessary. But not this focused one on one particular incident. This incident has arisen, this incident is being investigated but the wider issue ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Getting back on the subject; the point to Members is whether to delay it. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am coming to that, Sir. I believe that to hear all the facts is necessary, but hearing the facts includes hearing the representation that will be made by Verita. As Senator Syvret said, this is a matter for Members. Members will make their minds up how they wish. I would only like to say, and I was asked, I did not read what I had written down out verbatim because I find this quite difficult. I have not been in a situation where somebody's personal life has been opened up to me quite this way before and to have the thought of having it put out in the public domain is a very difficult thing, I am sure. I did say that Mr. Rourke had contacted me. In his gentle way he told me of his distress at the prospect of the whole matter being put back in the spotlight this week in the course of the debate. He explained that he had been fully involved in the decision to undertake the Verita review and was supportive of that being allowed to run its course. He has also told me about his extended family's concerns. Every time this pops up on the internet media, as it is obviously bound to do ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

This will happen on your proposition, this will happen in 2 weeks in any event, so I bring you back to this proposition.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I have said enough, people can see how I feel about this. I am representing this man and I would ask Members to support me in a delay, which I do not think 2 more weeks is material in the time frame that would be involved in a Committee of Inquiry. I put the proposition and I ask for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for and the matter is the proposition of the Connétable of St. Mary as to whether to adjourn the debate of Projet 76 for 2 weeks pending a visit from Verita. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

Senator S. Syvret:

In that case I would ask for the proposition to be re-listed for 30th June as the first item. That is if Members can possibly tear themselves away from the no doubt far more important subject of States Members remuneration presently listed for the first item. I cannot help but observe no doubt States Members will, at the appropriate time, enthusiastically rush to embracing a Committee of Inquiry into Operation Blast which affects themselves but not the general health and safety and welfare of people in this community.

2. Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005: proposed changes (P.54/2009) The Deputy Bailiff :

Then we move on to the next matter on the Order Paper which is Projet 54, the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005: proposed changes, lodged by the Public Accounts Committee, and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the Minister for Treasury and Resources to bring forward for approval amendments to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005 to expand the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to companies that are wholly or majority owned by the States of Jersey with the exception of publicly quoted companies to enable him to exercise similar functions in relation to these entities as those he exercises in relation to States funded bodies.

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):

This is a proposition which is brought to the States after the Public Accounts Committee, scrutiny, and even, dare I say, the Council of Ministers worked together to a certain degree. It was felt, following a Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel review that the corporate governance arrangements with respect to the Waterfront Enterprise Board gave some cause for concern and it had been a sort of to do item for a while that the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers did not extend to the

Waterfront Enterprise Board. Members are probably aware that under the Public Finances Law the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is to provide the States with independent assurance that the public finances of Jersey are being regulated, controlled and supervised and accounted for in accordance with this law. Obviously the fact that W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) was slightly outside the C.&A.G.'s (Comptroller and Auditor General) powers meant that we could not be certain that everything was being checked and double checked to the degree it should have been. Also, I think it highlighted the fact that States appointed directors were in a very difficult position at times because they had to comply with company confidentiality arrangements and do what is best for the company and simultaneously do what is best for the Island, and sometimes there may be a slight overlap on that area. The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel undertook a full review of the aspects of W.E.B. that could be strengthened and one of the main targets was to extend the C.&A.G.'s powers so that he could go into W.E.B. and go through the books and make sure that everything was right. I have been working now with the C.&A.G. for approximately 6 months and I must say that I do find him very thorough and, may I say, exceedingly independent. I have full confidence that extending these powers to him will give the public of Jersey and the States greater comfort in ensuring that the W.E.B. and other bodies are properly scrutinised. The actual law, when we were looking at it, we looked at all majority States-owned assets, which includes Jersey New Waterworks and Jersey Electricity, but then we came across a few problems with regards to Jersey Electricity. Jersey Electricity is a quoted company and has quite strenuous corporate governance requirements from the mere fact that it has a stock exchange listing. There could have been problems with the C.&A.G. producing reports as these would have been deemed to be sensitive items with regard to notification to the Stock Exchange and so on and so forth. So this actual proposition exempts publicly quoted companies, which in effect is just the Jersey Electricity company, for these reasons. We did look at this quite thoroughly to make sure that what we were recommending was right and we brought it on that basis. Jersey New Waterworks, although they do have loan stock in issue is not a publicly quoted company and, as such, it will be caught under this proposition. If Members have any questions I will be only too delighted to answer them. But I do think this is a step in the right direction, but it is just one step, and with regard to W.E.B., or whatever they are going to call it in the future, there is still a lot more work to be done. But it is a

step in the right direction and I put forward the proposition. The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I have signalled to the Assembly the fact that I am reviewing the arrangements that the Treasury has for all of the States owned utilities. The Island and this Assembly and the functions discharged by the Treasury holds literally tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of pounds worth of assets. I was fortunate to persuade the Council of Ministers to allocate some of last year's carry forward to enable me to carry out a review of utilities, and that is underway. I am determined to put in place, while all is certainly not wrong, I do want to see strengthened arrangements in place for all of the utilities and it is likely that over the next 2 to 3 years we may be adding further wholly owned States entities under the responsibility of the Treasury. Certainly the States of Jersey Development Company will fall under the Treasury remit. There are discussions going on of what the right structure of entities such as Jersey Airport is in the future. So I am determined that the Treasury is fit for purpose in dealing with these important shareholder functions. We need arrangements that not only hold those, effectively, States subsidiaries to account but, as Senator Shenton quite rightly says, that we need standardised arrangements for corporate governance, which in itself assists in securing long term shareholder value. I warmly welcome this. I will undertake the review that is requested and return to the Assembly. I do not see any issues at all here with extending the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am going to report back to the States with my overall strategy in dealing with utilities and I will do so as soon as possible.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I would just like to add my pennies to the comments that the Comptroller and Auditor General has certainly demonstrated his worth to the Island. I think it is absolutely correct that he should be able to look anywhere where taxpayers' money is involved, whether that be charities or corporations. I look forward to the expansion of his duties as soon as possible please, to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, through you, Sir, and I thoroughly support this proposition.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Notwithstanding the Minister for Treasury and Resources' comments that he is carrying out a review, I would like to know from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, given that the real big player has been, so to speak, exempted from these arrangements, how does he think that the public interest should be asserted in regard to the Jersey Electricity Company because obviously we are the major shareholder and I think the Public Accounts Committee has got a major role to play in how our money is used. We know it is a very well managed, or has been very well and is a well managed company, but it has taken on a much more private company profile and modus operandi in the way it works. For a lot of members of the public they find that hard to reconcile the fact that we, in their eyes, rightly or wrongly, we are seen to be somehow protecting a monopoly.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would like to add that the review that I am carrying out includes the J.E.C. (Jersey Electricity Company).

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon the chairman to reply.

4. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I would like to thank the Minister for Treasury and Resources for giving a rundown of the work the Treasury is undertaking and the admittance that there is a need for strong corporate governance in entities where the States have a control, and certainly the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) will be working  with the  Minister for  Treasury and Resources on  making sure that everything  is tightened up to a professional level. Senator Ferguson spoke, obviously I would like to thank her panel for doing the Scrutiny review, which was very worthwhile. I agree with her. Anywhere that taxpayers' money is involved we have to make sure that the C.&A.G. can stick his nose in and make sure that it is money well spent and used for the appropriate purposes. Deputy Le Hérissier, the P.A.C. spoke at length about the issue of the J.E.C. and it is part, as Senator Ozouf said, of the Treasury review. It is quite a difficult balancing act because you have the pressures of a private company and the need for profitability but also the need to make sure you generate sufficient returns for reinvestment and reinvestment is the key, having holidayed in places that have not reinvested in the electricity infrastructure is not a road we want to go down. But it is something that we have sort of high on the agenda and it is something that we will maintain and review with the Minister for Treasury and Resources. With that I would like to put forward the proposition and I ask for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is asked for then in relation to Projet 54. I invite Members to return to their seats for or against the proposition and the Greffier will now open the voting. All Members had an opportunity of voting? The Greffier will close the voting.

3. Rent Control Tribunal: appointment of Chairman and Members (P.65/2009) The Deputy Bailiff :

We move next to the Rent Control Tribunal: appointment of Chairman and Members, Projet 65, lodged by the Minister for Housing. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Dwelling Houses (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law 1946 as amended to appoint the following persons to act as chairman and members of the Rent Control Tribunal for a period ending on 12th April 2010, namely Mr. Eric Henry Le Ruez, chairman; Mr. Edward George Trevor M.B.E., Mr. Jeremy James Robin Johnson , Mrs. Mary Margaret Gaiger.

3.1 Deputy S. Power (Assistant Minister for Housing - rapporteur)

This is a relatively short proposition. Rent control provides a statutory facility to enable a private sector tenant to appeal to an independent body, the Rent Control Tribunal, to have his or her rent reduced if he or she considered this to be excessive. It applies to rent only on residential properties but not on commercial property. It applies only to tenants. Lodgers do not have rights at the moment under current legislation, and that is something that I am working on. As you will see in the report, Article 3 of the Dwelling House (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law 1946 provides for the States to appoint a Rent Control Tribunal consisting of a chairman and not less than 3, no more than 4, other members. The law also provides that the chairman and 2 other members constitute a quorum for any sitting of the Tribunal. Regulation 2 of the Dwelling House (Rent Control) (Jersey) Regulations 1946 states that the chairman and members of the Tribunal shall hold office for a period of 12 months ending on 12th April each year and be eligible for reappointment. The chairman and members who are currently serving on the Tribunal for the period ending 12th April 2009 have agreed to allow their names to be put forward for nomination for a further term and this is supported by the Jersey Appointments Commission. I make the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Slightly off the point, but I suspect the Deputy knew it was coming. Could he tell us how active the Tribunal is at the moment? This question is asked every time, these are eminent, and I am sure very busy people. Are they playing a role, in the rapporteur's view, that is worth playing?

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

I do not know why the Assistant Minister was asked to read out what was in the report, I think all States Members could have probably read out the report themselves, but that is just an issue. Can I ask the Assistant Minister; was an application put out to see whether any new blood may well be required or may be interested in taking over this body? The other issue is maybe he could address, and I think probably the members of the panel themselves may welcome it, but Regulation 2 does state that these people are in office for 12 months. When one looks at the Complaints Board, P.92, the members are there for 3 years. One looks at the Income Tax and Commission, they are there for 3 years, W.E.B. Directors for 3 years, and I would have thought that these people probably would be far easier, probably less on States time as well, if they were also in office for 3 years. That may be something that maybe the Minister might consider.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I support these very worthy people on the proposition but it occurs to me that we have just had a list of names. Now, for those of us who have been in the House longer than a year, yes, we have read the biographies of these people before. But for new Members they do not possibly know all the names. Could I please ask that in future, in common with other departments, when names are put forward for election to a post then there should be a plotted biography attached in the report.

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

Slightly mischievous, I declare an interest as a tenant but would support this because I do not think it is pecuniary. I wonder if there is a need for a declaration of landlords in this debate or not.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I do not think that would be a personal interest, Deputy .

5. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

Although Senator Ferguson has touched upon it; I have raised this matter in the past. I do think it is extremely discourteous to bring forward a report that states the names of people who are, albeit prepared to stand for reappointment. As Deputy Le Hérissier has said, they are eminent and busy people. I think this is the third time I have stood in this Assembly to ask that when such propositions are brought forward we do have some information on these eminent and busy people so that we are indeed able to make an informed decision. That is the whole process of the States, our decisions should be informed. I do not know any of these people other than Mr. Trevor for another reason, but I am not able to make an informed decision on the people who have been proposed to us today. I ask the Assistant Minister to provide us, in his summing up, with the background to each of the individuals.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Just to follow up from Deputy Le Hérissier's request for how active this body is; can I be specific? How many times have they met in the past 12 months and how many cases has it dealt with?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

On a point of order, and I did reach for my Standing Orders, under Standing Order 106 Declaration of Interest: "A Member of the States who has or whose spouse or cohabitee has an interest in the subject matter of a proposition must (a) .." it goes on to declare financial interest but: (b) if it is not a direct financial interest but a financial interest which is general, indirect or shared with a large class of persons declare the interest", and we have had this before where it may not necessarily preclude Members from taking part in a debate but if they are landlords I do think that this would affect them potentially in the future and they would need to declare an interest.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I think it is a matter for Members. This is simply to set up members of a Tribunal. It is not to take a decision which would affect landlords or tenants or such. It is simply to choose the members of a Tribunal which will decide whether it is fair or not. I think it is too far removed, Deputy , to declare an interest.

7. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

I just briefly want to support what Senator Ferguson said which is exactly on the nail, and the Constable of St. Lawrence. Once again we are asked to approve appointments without adequate information. There are 3 kinds of information that should be in every such proposition. One is an outline of what these people do, the terms of reference and the length of sitting and so on, which we do have in this report. The second is who the people are, background information. The third is the exact process by which the post was advertised and the whole selection procedure and how that worked. Without those 3 things we cannot possibly decide on these appointments, and it keeps coming to this House with one or other of those aspects missing. So I do plead not only with this Assistant Minister but with all Ministers who bring these appointments to the House that they give us the proper information in future.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

8. Deputy S. Power:

I thank those for asking me questions to clarify the situation. The first question was, and this came about with Deputy Southern 's, and the first question was about the frequency of the meetings of the Tribunal. The current Tribunal has not been required to meet or adjudicate on any specific referrals in the past 12 months. The Tribunal did not meet to date in 2009 and they did not meet in 2008. The reason for that is the very limited activity of the Tribunal is due to the fact there have been no appeals to the Tribunal.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Would the Assistant Minister give way? Could the Assistant Minister offer some sort of explanation as to why there is this lack of activity? Is it because the market is working superbly well and there is never any complaints from any tenants, or is it possibly that tenants are unaware of the activities of this Rent Tribunal Panel and unaware of its existence, and will he correct that?

Deputy S. Power:

I cannot speculate for the reasons why private sector tenants have not appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. It may be that they are not aware of its existence. It may be that there have not been complaints to date from within the private sector. It may be that rent increases have not been excessive. It may be that there is a reasonably healthy rental market out there. For me to speculate as to why there have not been complaints would be wrong.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I do apologise, I do not wish to make his life hard; but will the Assistant Minister undertake to investigate why there have been no appeals and come to this House with some sort of answer about how effective this body is being?

Deputy S. Power:

I can answer the Deputy by saying I have already had a discussion with senior officers of the Housing Department as to why activity has been so low and I am going to make sure that the Rent Control Tribunal, its profile is raised in the local media over the next few months. That is the first query. The second query was with regard to advertising. The positions were advertised in 2006 and 2008 as follows in the Jersey Evening Post: "Tribunal members together here [this is an extract] and determine referrals for consideration of rent payable in accordance with the Dwelling House (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law 1946 as amended." It also goes on to say there are a maximum of 4 members and the role of the Tribunal is an honorary one and attracts no remuneration. That was advertised twice in the Jersey Evening Post. I agree with the point made about term of office. I think one year is too short and if the profile of the Rent Control Tribunal is to be raised by me and the department I will look at increasing the period of office from 2 years to 3 years. I accept the points made by 2 Members about the lack of background information on the 4 persons named on the proposition. It is a fault and I apologise to Members for that. However, I will say that this is a reappointment of members who were appointed in 2006 and 2008 and I can confirm that the chairman is Eric Le Ruez who was the former chief officer of the Housing Department, Mr. Edward Trevor is the chairman of Shop Mobility, Mr. Jeremy James Johnson is a senior lawyer in a Jersey law firm, and Mrs. Mary Gaiger is a former director of the Guiton Group. If Members require me to produce a detailed summary of their C.V.s (curriculum vitae) I am very happy to do that. But all of these 4 persons have quite a bit of experience in these areas and again I apologise to Members for the fact that we have not included up-to-date C.V.s. If I have left anything out I will probably be reminded, but I do not think there is anything I have omitted. I make the proposition.

9. The Deputy of St. Martin :

Could I just clarify that we are voting for one year? The Assistant Minister kept saying 2 years but it is only 12 months.

Deputy S. Power:

The proposition as reads is for one year and I will look at increasing the period of appointment from one to 2 years or to 3 years. I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for in relation to the proposition of the Minister for Housing, Projet 65. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting. All Members had an opportunity of voting? The Greffier will close the voting. The proposition is adopted: 38 votes pour, 3 votes contre.