States Meeting Transcript - 22nd November 2011

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 22nd NOVEMBER 2011

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................3

1. Appointment of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee...........3

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................3

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ...............................................................5
2. Senator P.F. Routier: ....................................................................5
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................5
4. Connétable M.J. Paddock of St. Ouen:...................................................6
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................6
6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................6
7. Senator L.J. Farnham :....................................................................6
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................7
9. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................7
10. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : ...............................................7
11. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:.......................................8
12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:............................................................8
13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:......................................................8
14. Senator S.C. Ferguson:................................................................8
15. Deputy M.R.Higgins:................................................................9
16. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................9
17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................9
18. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................10
19. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................10
20. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................10
21. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................10

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................11

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................13
2. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................13
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................13
4. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................14
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................14
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................15
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................15
8. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................16
9. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................16
10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................16
11. The Connétable of Trinity :..........................................................17
12. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................17
13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................17
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................18

3. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................18

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................20
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................20
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................21
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................21
5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................21
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................22
7. The Connétable of Trinity :..............................................................22
8. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................22
9. Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier : ......................................................22
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................23
11. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................23
12. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................23
13. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................23

4. Deputy G.C. Baudains of St. Helier:....................................................24

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................25
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................26
3. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................26
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................26
5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................27
6. The Connétable of Trinity :..............................................................27
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
8. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................28
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................28

2. Appointment of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee: ...................28

2.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................29

3. Appointment of the Chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel: ............29

3.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................29

4. Appointment of the Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel:..............29

4.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................29

5. Appointment of the Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel:..30

5.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................30

6. Appointment of the Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel:..................31

6.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................31

7. Appointment of the Chairman of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: .............32

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................32
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................32

8. Appointment of the Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel:....................................................................................36

8.1 Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................36

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................38

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

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. Appointment of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee The Bailiff :

We now begin by welcoming His Excellency to this formal sitting. [Approbation] We come to F, Appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels and the first matter for the Assembly is the appointment of the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee. I invite nominations.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

May I nominate the Constable of St. Helier ?

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I would like to nominate Deputy Tadier .

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I would like to nominate the Constable of St. Mary , please.

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded]

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

I would like to nominate Deputy Baudains of St. Clement .

The Bailiff :

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Very well, that concludes the nominations so we have 4 candidates therefore I request that Deputy Tadier , the Connétable of St. Mary and Deputy Baudains retire with the Assistant Greffier to a secure location and we will begin with the Connétable of St. Helier in a moment. Very well, I invite the Connétable of St. Helier to address the Assembly.

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

I am going to spend most of these precious 10 minutes speaking not about constitutional reform as I think a clear way forward has already been agreed by the Assembly with the sensible suggestion from the new Chief Minister about the chairing of the Electoral Commission. Instead I am going to speak about States reform, that is, reforming the experience of being in this place, a Member of one of the oldest legislatures in the world; not just our experience but the public who switch on their radios and switch them off again, the media who report on what happens here and the experience of the Presiding Officer of the Assembly who, of course, has no choice but to listen. Marvell wrote: "But at my back I always hear time's winged chariot hurrying near." Time, Sir, as you must appreciate with your other responsibilities as a judge, is a precious commodity. The older we get, the less time we seem to be able to find for our jobs, our careers, our home lives, our pastimes and so it is time surely that this Assembly placed a higher priority on the effective management of its time. The statistics speak for themselves. We are spending an increasing number of days in debate. It was a Tuesday every fortnight when I started as a Deputy in 1996 with the occasional

Wednesday if matters overran. Now we spend the better part of every other week in here, often overrunning into the following week. Now, let me be the first to interject that there are those who do not agree with me. There are some States Members who appear to have nothing better to do than to sit in these uncomfortable seats and stand to make long speeches, to repeat others and themselves, make spurious points of order and generally do all they can to ensure States sittings occupy the better part of each week we are sent. These Members believe that time spent in the Assembly, whatever the subject of debate, however frequently it has already been debated, however slender its chances of success, is quite simply the best way that they can exercise their function of being a Member of the States. The right of the Back-Bencher to bring projets or Private Members' Bills is sacrosanct. I use it myself sparingly, sparingly, because if everyone presented, as one Deputy boasted he did last week, more than 20 projets in the life of the last Government which under our present system must be debated without limit of time, it would bring the system to a standstill. It is precisely because I value the individual Member's right to bring forward propositions that I believe we must find a better way of managing our business. I am not sure it should be left to the President to approve propositions but to a committee of elected Members chaired by the President perhaps and including Back-Benchers as well as Scrutiny and Members of the Executive and the Greffier, of course, who perhaps, more than anyone, knows about States time as he produces the statistics at the end of each year. People are surprised in particular when I describe our system to them by its lack of co-ordination. A Member may be working on a proposition quite unaware that a fellow Member is well advanced on the same or similar theme. Questions are regularly submitted on the same subject as Members do not regularly get together or even make use of some kind of notice board in order to better co-ordinate our work. P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) needs to facilitate the closer working together of Members so that outside the Chamber we can discuss matters of common interest and concern. Perhaps it is too much to hope that we in this Assembly will all become bosom friends but being a States Member can be made a more enjoyable profession than it is today. We must have the opportunity to sit down and eat together at least one day in every States sitting. To that end, the demise of States Members' lunches was a backward step for this Assembly and I would seek to restore them subject to a rescindment motion [Approbation] as soon as possible and to fund them from within the spending envelope of the committee. But as with all of the reforms I would like to see us embrace, these must begin with meaningful consultation with States Members by the new P.P.C. in order that any proposals brought forward have a good chance of being adopted. After all, my views about any of the subjects that fall within the remit of the committee are less important than achieving a consensus in the committee and within the Assembly: my views on holding P.P.C. meetings in public in the interests of greater transparency; on the limitation of States debates and States days so that Members can plan their lives better and serve their constituents better; on the reduction of the quorum; on the need for an elected speaker; on the position of the Dean; on the introduction of web cameras in the Chamber; on the creation of a press room; on the introduction of

a pension scheme for States Members. [9:45]

Yes, I have views on all these subjects and, in fact, I support some of them but my views are irrelevant unless there is consensus that reforms of this sort will create a more efficient and transparent States Assembly. States Members' facilities do need improvement. The previous P.P.C. responded to the tendency of a minority of Members to put the photocopier to private use by putting a lock on it. The lock needs to come off the photocopier. Members need to have a proper range of publications so that they are better informed with better research tools at their disposal and better use made of the rooms in this building, some of which are largely wasted. Members need training so that even the most dyed in the wool Constable can be taught to speak through the Chair. [Laughter] I believe we need to forge closer links as an Assembly with our fellow parliamentarians in Guernsey, perhaps in the form of an annual summit held before the cricket

match, I would suggest, rather than after it, inter-Island rivalry being what it is. [Laughter] Speaking of publications, States Members need worry no longer about finding a suitable Christmas present for their spouses or partners. Elect me chair of P.P.C. and there will be a States Members Yearbook produced in time for Christmas, not only with those key statistics produced by the Greffe, but providing a record of the highs and lows of the political year, the best speech, the worst speech. I imagine the page: "Did he or she really say that?" will be of particular interest and amusement. We should also mark the passing of former States Members with photographs and obituaries. [Approbation] The previous P.P.C. supported by the Greffe has done sterling work in involving greater numbers of schoolchildren in the affairs of the States. These school visits, added to the Youth Parliament, will, I am sure, have a growing role in increasing the understanding of young people in the way their Government operates and will encourage more of them, perhaps, to stand for election. But I believe that this involvement of our community in the proceedings of the States can go further. It is perhaps understandable why the visitors' gallery is usually empty but it is not inevitable. I would like P.P.C. to build on the work done by the former committee to encourage locals and visitors alike to visit our Government and observe what we do. I would say more but as brevity is my watchword, I would like to finish by saying that as I have a previously arranged trip off Island later this week, if elected chair of P.P.C. I will not be able to present the proposed list of Members to the States until 6th December. I will, however, be back in plenty of time to organise the States Members' Christmas lunch [Laughter] and I would ask Members to place this in their diaries for Thursday, 8th December. There will be no charge for this but Members will be asked to dip into their pockets for the Jersey Cheshire Home and I would finish by saying that that offer is not conditional on my becoming chair of P.P.C.

The Bailiff :

Very well. So we turn then to questions. Deputy Le Hérissier?

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Notwithstanding that excellent speech, I wonder if the Constable could comment on the role of P.P.C. in relation to disciplinary procedures, having myself just experienced a totally unsatisfactory example of an alleged disciplinary procedure which was a highly contentious and personal kind of affair?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Yes, I recognise from looking at the list of matters that occupied the previous committee, it is quite clear that discipline occupied a lot of the time. I think the system needs changing. I myself have been subject to what I thought was an unsatisfactory disciplinary hearing by a former P.P.C. and I think it does need changing. But that, I think, is something that must be done by consulting first of all with Members in the Chamber and Members who have left who have been in these courts held by P.P.C. and who feel that we could manage our disciplinary affairs much better.

2. Senator P.F. Routier:

The candidate gave a list of things that he thought needed to be addressed and he was very enticing. He was talking about web cameras and those sorts of things but he then went on to say he supported some of them. I would just like to know which ones he does support.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I did not want to be too radical. I support them all. [Laughter]

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

It was 28 propositions over 2 years. I think the number for the 3-year period was probably nearer 40. How does this candidate intend to limit my ability to lodge propositions, all of which I will back to the hilt?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think the first thing I would say is that I believe that someone like Deputy Southern with his impressive track record in bringing Back-Benchers' propositions  needs to be involved in any committee that is set up to manage the affairs of the States better. However, I think there is a problem where the proportion of work being brought forward by the Executive and by Scrutiny is being simply swamped by Back-Benchers' propositions, some of which, as I have said, probably would not need to be brought if there had been greater co-ordination and communication between Members of the States.

4. Connétable M.J. Paddock of St. Ouen :

Does the Constable consider that the process that we went through last week to appoint Ministers is the ideal system and if not, does the candidate have any initial thoughts on how it might be improved?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

It was, I think, nearly 3 days last week, 2 full days to appoint the Council of Ministers and certainly eyebrows were raised and I believe some new Members were beginning to ask themselves what precisely they were letting themselves in for. I do think it could be improved. Having said that, I was very impressed and I think it was impressive how close the results were and that the Chief Minister has got most of his candidates. Possibly some system of weeding out the weaker candidates before we meet in here would have been useful because at least that would reduce the amount of time that we spend but, again, this is a matter for discussion among States Members.

5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Following on from Deputy Southern really, a key fundamental part of Government is that it is democratic and I am afraid we do have now Senators who want to dumb down the level of politics, the key areas of things that are debated and discussed. How will the Constable, if he is successful, ensure that politics just does not get dumbed down towards a sort of autocratic maybe sort of totalitarian state eventually?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think that these are different considerations. The dumbing down of the States, it could be argued, has got not a lot to do with autocracy. I think part of the problem we have is, as I have said in my speech, that there is so little co-ordination and communication that Members are spending increasing amounts of their time in the Assembly and there is a risk that the matters of States are being dumbed down. How we achieve a better managed States, whether we sit later in the evenings, whether we have time-limited debates, is a matter for the States to decide but I think we are all agreed that we cannot go on like this.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

The candidate mentioned that he would like to see consensus, I think, and it has been mentioned in the past by the Chief Minister that he wants to see a more consensual States Chamber. Would the candidate, if he is appointed chairman, be selecting people who do reflect the views of this States rather than just a narrow minority?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Absolutely I would. I think the Chief Minister has led the way to some extent in doing that and I think certainly I would want to have some of the people in the States who have voiced the strongest opposition to any changes involved in the committee so that we could try and get them on board.

7. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Could the candidate give us his views briefly, please, on the constitutional makeup of the Assembly and, in particular, does he believe that the Island-wide mandate should be retained?

Yes, thank you to the Senator. I deliberately kept off the magic formulae of how we can slim down the States. I think the need to slim down the States is probably the only thing that would receive general support, both in the Assembly and in the community. My experience in recent years has taught me that the Island-wide mandate is very important to the public but how we find a way of electing people on an Island-wide mandate at a general election is clearly going to test the abilities of not only P.P.C. but also the States. I do myself support the Island-wide mandate but whether that has to be expressed in large constituencies as was brought forward by the previous P.P.C., that may be the only practical way of doing it.

8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

The candidate, as Constable of St. Helier, is responsible for probably one of the biggest budgets, well, almost equivalent to some of the Ministerial budgets and certainly responsible for large chunks of the population, et cetera. In other words, it is a very large role already. How is he going to ensure with all the various things that will be on the agenda of P.P.C. going forward that he is going to have the time to devote to this properly?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Of course, part of the answer is effective delegation and having a committee with Members who are willing to take on different roles within the committee. I do not believe that the chair of any committee should seek to do everything, that they should find people in the group who have particular interests they want to advance. It is true that I have a busy time in St. Helier. What the Deputy did not mention is that I do it all without a chief officer but, again, as Constable, I do try to delegate to Deputies so that if necessary I would delegate some work, if I could do, to Deputies in St. Helier to take the pressure off the P.P.C. role.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : My question has just been answered.

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

What is the candidate's opinion of yes, we sat for 2 days last week electing Ministers and we will be sitting for probably 2 days this week electing chairs of Scrutiny Panels and P.P.C. What does he feel about the process, now we are in the third term, of the way Assistant Ministers are just put into jobs? Would he look to be changing this?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Again, I think this is a matter for the Assembly but having recently had my offer to be an Assistant Minister turned down, I think there probably does need to be some reform here. If the role of the Assistant Minister is to be meaningful and accountable, then it does seem to me that States Members should have some say in it. Having said that, again, if we do not adopt some kind of procedure to avoid it, we are going to have a very lengthy process in 3 and a half years' time if we have to have a contested election for Assistant Ministers as well as everybody else.

10. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity : Would the candidate support time-limited speeches?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think it could probably be inferred from my speech that I do support some kind of limitation to the amount of time we spend in the Chamber, whether that is through time-limited speeches or by addressing the quorum. I do not, for example, believe that we need to have a full quorum for question time but these are personal views and I think they need to be discussed with Members. If there is consensus in the Assembly that we want to spend a limit of our time, barring crises and let me remind Members that the Oath that we have recently sworn requiring us to be here was

written in the days when the States were only convened when there was a problem, whether it was oysters or the price of corn. The States were convened for that purpose and now, because we meet so often, I think there is a risk that we are overlooking serious business that should be being discussed.

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

What are the benefits of P.P.C. in public and what would be restricted?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

In general, I think committee meetings should be held in public. St. Helier has held its Roads Committee in public now on more than 100 occasions. We have not yet been followed by any of the other Parishes but I am sure we will in time. The public has a right to know. Unless there are matters which really belong on the B agenda, then I do not see why these meetings should not be in public and, indeed, I supported the proposition that the Council of Ministers' meetings should also be held in public, which did not get a lot of support in the Chamber. I suppose if I formed a P.P.C. who turned on me and said that they did not wish to be heard in public, then I would have no choice but to go with their views however.

12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Pressing the candidate on the discipline issue, would the candidate care to comment on the fact that if Members are disciplining Members, very often the experience  has been it degenerates into personal spats or it degenerates into: "You are picking on me" type accusations. How would the candidate get around that and come up with a system that was credible and where people felt they were getting a fair hearing?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think first of all we need to review the various reports that have been produced by former P.P.C. Committees and, indeed, the experience that is available when we can see how Members have been treated. I do not think it is that difficult to learn lessons from those, things that really should not happen, things that should not be said. As I said in my earlier answer, having been myself the subject of what I thought was an unfair process, I would certainly support the tightening up of the procedures. It is always going to be a difficult process but I do not think we have any alternative. I do not think we can bring in outsiders to judge on us, so I think we have to find ways as an Assembly of elected Members of organising ourselves and behaving in a way that is appropriate when we pass judgment on other Members.

[10:00]

13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Does the candidate feel that there is an issue in the continuing debate of States business in the period between the calling of an election and the swearing in of new Members and would he promise to do something about it, irrespective of the date of the next election in 2014?

The Connétable of St. Helier : Yes.

14. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

There have been complaints recently that certain items of business have come back to the States again and again and again and are debated several times during one session. Has the candidate any views on these and would he put a bar on it?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think I revealed my frustration with that exact situation in my opening speech. I think part of the problem is the fact that we are operating as individual units much of the time, particularly as Back- Benchers. Sometimes there is almost a race to see who can get the proposition in first so as to garner the credit that may come from bringing it to the Assembly. I think we have to be, dare I say, more grownup about things. As I said, we need to meet more often, we need to share information, we need to say: "Well, if Deputy so and so is dealing with it, then I do not need to, happy days." But certainly if there is to be a committee which manages the business of the States and perhaps avoids us having to sit through a period at the end of what may be a late evening discussing the following sitting, I think that committee should be empowered by the States to organise the business and to set time limits.

15. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Could the candidate elaborate on his views about the Electoral Commission which was approved by the last Assembly, and whether he thinks it should be chaired or populated by any Members of this Assembly?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

My view at the moment is that it could certainly include States Members. I know the Chief Minister has suggested Sir Philip Bailhache should be the Chairman of it. Clearly, that Member was elected on a mandate for constitutional reform so there is an appropriateness about that. But, again, I think that P.P.C. will be in the hands of Members. I do not think P.P.C. would be wise to come forward with the composition of the Electoral Commission before it had consulted States Members so if there was clearly a majority of Members who wanted an external chair who wanted, for example, a local chair rather than one brought in from the U.K. (United Kingdom), then I think those views would be reflected by P.P.C. if they wanted to get off to a good start.

16. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The role of the chairman of P.P.C. is a very time-demanding and onerous one. When the candidate was serving on my Scrutiny Panel some 5 years ago, he managed to turn up for the first meeting and 2 years later for the final meeting. What technique has the candidate discovered in the last 5 years which is going to make him expand time to run the Parish of St. Helier and the P.P.C. Committee?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think one could take that question in different ways but the last part of it, what have I learned in 5 years, I think I have learned better time management. I have learned better delegation and certainly if one judges me on some of the meetings I attend such as the Parish Roads Committee, which is an open meeting and accessible to the media and so on, that is not a problem. So I accept the Deputy 's criticism but all I can say is that if Members have confidence in the approach I am taking, they will see improvements.

17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The candidate seems to be suggesting that politicians will have a say in what other politicians can bring to this Assembly. How is he going to ensure independence of that process and that it does not just turn into a mechanism dominated by one power block or another to just block the ability of Members to bring something to this Assembly?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I think I mentioned the sacrosanct right of the Back-Bencher to bring propositions. I have one tabled for the next sitting myself. It is incredibly important and whatever we do to manage our business better, it must allow Members to bring Private Members' Bills. So I do not know the answer to the question in a sense but I think to repeat a previous answer, we are all agreed that if we go on like this, in the end we will not do anything else but meet here every week when the

States are in session from Monday to Friday. I think Members have to decide whether they feel enough is enough and they want to have lives outside the Assembly.

18. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Senator Farnham mentioned Senators. During the debate to save the 2 Senators, we had Senator Le Main who was pulled up for snoring, Senator Shenton, as he was then, who disappeared, his average time being one hour and 37 minutes in the States last year. Would the candidate support some kind of fine or whatever for the Senators particularly who just do not really do their job?

The Connétable of St. Helier : No, Sir.

19. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The candidate was proposed by a Member who has fixed views on States reform, including the giving of greater power to the Constables in the States. Does the candidate support that?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I cannot comment on whether my proposer has fixed views on anything. The role of the Constables is, of course, contentious. The last time it was brought to the Assembly by the questioner, I think, it received 4 votes. I must say I have batted on both sides of this argument. When I was elected, I thought the Constables should be elected separately as Members of the States of Jersey but then I looked at the situation in Guernsey where the Constables have very little effective influence in the States of Guernsey and I thought perhaps we tamper with the role of the Constable at our peril. I do incidentally believe that Constables as individuals should be able to answer questions and one should be able to question them in the States. My colleagues are shaking my heads at this point but certain increased accountability for Constables, I think, is important if we are to have a seat in the States.

20. Deputy J.A. Martin:

My question was I was not happy with his answer re Assistant Ministers because he said with responsibility comes accountability. Firstly, to cut the time down, here is a suggestion if you get the job. You elect the Minister with the Assistants already and we know who we are electing as a package. Secondly, in oral questions, and if the P.P.C. do not bring it, would he agree that with the accountability, you can direct your question to the Assistant Minister to ask if it is a written oral so they already know what it is. That is where the accountability should be. So I have given the candidate 2 suggestions there.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Thank you, 2 really good suggestions, in my view, and I think which more than demonstrate why Deputy Martin is an important member of any P.P.C. Committee. [Laughter]

21. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

If the Electoral Commission recommendations are derailed and it cannot move to referendum, how will the candidate deal with it on P.P.C.?

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I am not sure quite what the questioner means by "derailed". I think this has happened before when proposals were brought to the States to reduce the number of Members and to have super constituencies.

The Bailiff :

Very well, Connétable , I have to stop you there, I am afraid. So that brings questions to the Connétable to an end. I ask the Connétable to retire with the Assistant Greffier and we will ask for Deputy Tadier to be brought up. Very well, then, Deputy Tadier is now with us and so when you are ready, Deputy Tadier , I invite you to address the Assembly.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am happy to be here again making a speech for a different position in a different capacity perhaps. First of all, I would like to say that clearly the job of P.P.C. is a complex one. It is made up of a broad section of States Members which includes also a broad view of political propensities which can both be a complicated thing to manage, but I think essentially it is something which is vital for a healthy democracy, not simply because it represents a divergence and a multiplicity of views but also of political responsibility. So I think what is essential is to have somebody leading that who has got the energy, has the diplomacy, who is fair-minded and is also good at listening and has got the capacity to work with Members from all parts of the Chamber and that is something which I believe I can do. Now, I want to just outline what I think the priorities will be for P.P.C. going forward. Before that, I think it is necessary to first of all address what the previous P.P.C. has done well and perhaps also look at some of the areas in which there is room for improvement. I think credit has to be given to the last P.P.C. because first of all, it has brought through some very important work. The F.O.I. (Freedom of Information) Law I think was a vast piece of work which the credit has to go first of all to the clerks, the Greffier and the Deputy Greffier, who helped with all that work. I know from my time on P.P.C. that there were times when we were often just quorate with 4 working Members on there. That is why I think it is also essential that whoever chairs the next P.P.C. is not somebody who already has a big portfolio. I think there were probably a limited amount of roles and positions in the Assembly which would be apt for the chair of P.P.C. and what I can give now today is a commitment that if I do become elected and get the confidence of this Assembly is that I would dedicate my full time to this position. I will not be working on Scrutiny, nor will I be taking up any Assistant Ministership post if offered. I think also P.P.C. has to be given credit for the vast perseverance that it has had when coming to electoral reform. The cynics among us, and I was probably one of them at the beginning of the last Assembly, thought that any kind of reform was dead in the water. Surely the States Assembly had debated it too many times and I think what is essential again is that all of those members of P.P.C., including myself, each had their own different opinions on whether reform was essential and what kind of reforms were to be pushed through or were required for the Assembly. Nonetheless, we did not let those personal views get in the way. I, for example, had particular views about whether or not the Constables should be in the States. I still hold those views but I think I have mellowed somewhat in the sense I would say that it is not for any individual States Member to try and dictate what his or her view is of any future Assembly and I think the States Assembly is also showing that it is incapable of reforming itself which leads us to the Electoral Commission. Now, what I would say about the Electoral Commission is that it must be kept on track and, as I said in my personal manifesto when standing for election in St. Brelade last month, is that it must be kept free from political and judicial interference. That means that States Members should not be seeking to unduly interfere with that process. Nonetheless, there will be a point at which we can legitimately make comments and that is through submitting comments to that Commission. P.P.C.'s job will first of all be to get on to facilitate the Electoral Commission and also I would remind Members

that we also passed P.61/2011 earlier this year. [10:15]

P.61/2011 was a proposition that I successfully brought to the Assembly. It was passed 24 votes to 19 and it asked to look at a whole series of issues which I think have been rumbling under the surface in this Assembly and just to remind Members, P.P.C. have already been asked to look at the issue, for example, of the selection of Scrutiny Panels. The Deputy of St. John, who unfortunately is not with us today, quite rightly pointed out the fact that there are inherent complications, if not to say contradictions, in the way we select Scrutiny. We are doing this before we even know who the Assistant Ministers are. That is clearly an issue because it sends out a message, perhaps one way or the other, that Scrutiny may be more important than Assistant Ministers or does it send the other message out, that I am not going to put myself forward to become a Scrutiny chairman, I am not going to put myself forward for P.P.C. or P.A.C. because I want to hold on to see if there is a job going for an Assistant Minister. Although it may not be more important, it does definitely come with a BlackBerry so that denotes that it may be a more senior position [Laughter] and it would certainly save me a few pounds on my phone bill every year if I did not have to pay for the high rental. But joking aside, these are serious issues. Also about whether Assistant Ministers should be appointed by the Assembly. Now, it may well be that an individual who has made a speech for a particular ministry who is not successful then goes on to become an Assistant Minister and that person has already been tried and tested, he or she has given a speech in front of the Assembly and we know what that person's policies are. We know generally if they are going  in the right direction. Perhaps it is an idea to have Assistant Ministers who all have to do that, especially if they are going to be given political responsibility. But the point is this has already been referred to P.P.C. to look at so when people stand up and say: "I think this should happen" we should not be trying to reinvent the wheel. I think we have to acknowledge the limited progress that has been made. Also remember that P.P.C. have done a great job. I think the Greffier's Department again deserves thanks for the successful elections that we have just had where we have seen an increase in voter turnout. So just to reiterate what I think I can offer for the position of P.P.C. First of all, I have given my strengths. I think having linguistic training gives me the ability not simply to be able to communicate with others and listen but looking and studying languages helps you think in a different way. It helps you think outside the box. It helps you engage with those who have different cognitive processes to your own and that is something that is important when dealing with the complex issues of the States. I also believe that I am a pragmatist. So I can put aside my own

personal views to try and work with other Members in the States for what is best for the Assembly. Also, I just like that kind of thing. The Greffier might tell you that in the past whenever I go on holiday .. and when I go on holiday to Egypt this year I am going to go and visit the Cairo Assembly and I do that when I go abroad because I am a bit of an Anorak. I think what you need in this kind of position is somebody who holds their hands up and says: "I am interested in this kind of thing." It is quite sad, but also I feel I have got the energy, charisma and the people skills to be able to take this very important area forward. I would also like to draw to Members' attention what I have done already. Some of it goes on behind the radar. Members will be aware of P.61, which I just mentioned. Earlier on in my 3-year term previously I brought a successful proposition which was unanimous. Simply a bit of housekeeping to say that when you ask questions during question time you get 2 questions and it is only right that you should be able to prioritise your questions number 1 and 2. What we saw in the past, because it was a random process, was sometimes you would put 2 questions in. Both of your questions would be towards the end, it would get timed-out and you could not ask your question; where, similarly, somebody who had been .. the luck of the draw meant they got their 2 questions at the beginning and they got to ask their 2. So at least that makes it fairer. It is not a great amendment but it is something that shows that I can be pragmatic and it is something that makes the workings of the Assembly much easier. Other priorities that I would favour would be a modernisation programme. Now, I talked about some of the things that P.P.C. previously did not do too well and I think it is also true for the States and for Scrutiny. We did not handle the whole filming of Scrutiny meetings, whether that is by the accredited or unaccredited media, very well. I thought we could have done that better. A simpler and more pragmatic approach would have simply been to say that that anybody who wants to film States meetings in the Scrutiny function should simply sign up to an agreement to say that they will agree to do X, Y and Z and not to do these things. Then any individual, whether they are from Channel TV, from the BBC or a blogger, if they break those they get a warning or they get simply told that

they are not allowed to turn up and film. That would have been a much straighter way forward. But I think the global issue here is that we need to modernise in such a way that we have television screens in the Chamber so we can see who is speaking. We need to make accessibility for the

public much easier. We should consider streaming in the future so we do not get issues to do with blogging. So we do our own in-house coverage and this is something that I would like to pursue. I think, just to sum up, there are other things, of course, I have done; for example I.D. (identification) for States Members. That was my idea. You can now go down to St. Brelard's Parish Hall and get an I.D. card issued no matter which States Member you are. I also got the sign outside, which is in English and French, to direct people to the States Assembly. I believe engagement is necessary for States Members and for the public, and that is something I hope to offer if I am given the chance to work in an area in which I feel passionate.

The Bailiff :

So now we come to questions to Deputy Tadier .

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

The Deputy referred to the necessity for diplomacy as chairman of the P.P.C. and I would like to ask him what examples he can give us of his diplomatic skills within this Chamber.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I thank the Constable for that question. I must have some diplomacy skills. I did win these propositions. The first one I talked about I won 24:19 and that is not an easy thing to do when you know States Members, a section of which are inherently against you from the beginning. That is on a political basis, not necessarily a personal basis. I have also looked at the Constable's voting record and noticed for that particular one she did not support me. I know it has been very difficult to gain the support of the Constable of St. Lawrence in general, but I think I have mellowed Members. I think, in turn, I have mellowed in the way I approach people. In terms of diplomacy skills, I am a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It was seen fit by the Assembly to send me over on a 2-week course to London. I had no problem engaging with high- level diplomats from all over the world. I think it is all about respect at the end of the day. It is perfectly valid for one to make robust political statements which one believes in but I think my upbringing has taught me one key lesson is to treat people you would like to be treated. That is what I hope I do and those who have worked with me on Scrutiny and on P.P.C. in the past and on other committees - the Electoral Working Party, which I did not mention - will know that I do know how to engage and make a valid contribution but, similarly, it is also about listening and holding your hand up when you are wrong.

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The candidate talked about the Electoral Commission. Now, I was on P.P.C. We agreed it was absolutely essential that that should be independent of States Members. However, I have been elected twice on a platform of governmental reform and social justice. Is it not a case perhaps that I should be leading this Electoral Commission?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the point is nobody in this Assembly should be leading this Electoral Commission, no States Member, and the States Assembly in the past has shown that it is incapable of reforming itself. That is not a criticism of the States Assembly. It is because we are so diverse. We all have such different views about what the composition of the States should be that we have decided to hand this over to somebody else. It seems completely ridiculous - and I am not afraid to say this on record - that anybody from the States Assembly should be on that Commission, let alone chairing that Commission. None of us in this Assembly has the mandate or the legitimacy to do that. Nonetheless, as I have said in the past, there is an appropriate avenue for us to take. We should be engaging with the public and we can make submissions to this Commission and that is the valid way for us to try and influence, correctly, the outcome of the commission.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can the candidate give his views of the strengths and weaknesses of Scrutiny and how he would move to make it more effective?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Scrutiny is a good idea in theory. I think we have seen some pragmatic, practical limitations for Scrutiny for 2 reasons, I think, primarily. The first reason is due to the makeup of Scrutiny. Now, I've talked about the Select Committee system in the past in the U.K. which takes a cross-section from across the Parliament and it represents the proportional makeup of their Government. For example, if the Tories in the U.K. have a two-thirds majority, there will be a two-thirds presence of the Tories on Select Committees, et cetera. In the States it is only those who do not serve as a Minister or as an Assistant Minister who can be on Scrutiny and that is why I think it is essential to revisit who can serve on Scrutiny. I would probably favour letting Assistant Ministers serve on Scrutiny so long as it does not conflict with their own area of Ministerial responsibility. I think the other issue is that we have all got lots of lessons to learn about the relationship between Scrutiny Panels and Ministerial departments. That is probably quite natural because Scrutiny is relatively young. We have only been in this Ministerial game for almost 6 years. So I think there are lots of lessons to be learnt. But the question is - and it is not one I can answer today - is there primarily a systemic and structural problem to Scrutiny or is it just a pragmatic one in the sense that we are not always getting the information that we are privy to. I think some Scrutiny Panels and departments work very well and we would do well to learn from those, but I think it is not a simple answer that I can give today.

4. Senator L.J. Farnham :

In relation to the constitution of the States Assembly, does the candidate think that the Island-wide mandate should be retained?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think that the Island-wide mandate is clearly something that strikes a chord with members of the public because they feel, for some reason, that it is more democratic. Now, I think there are 2 ways to analyse this. I think you could say that the smaller constituencies are more democratic because you have more influence over who you elect. I think the practical way forward, in my personal opinion, is to have super-constituencies because it gives the best of both worlds. You are able to vote for a larger amount of candidates. It will, hopefully, attract a better calibre of candidate. In my opinion, the single-seat constituencies are responsible for uncontested elections. That is nobody's fault but it is a practical consequence of that. I do not have a philosophical problem with the seat of Senator for the Island-wide mandate but I think, practically, I would like to see - and I have stood on this platform before - one type of States Member elected in one way with one title and, I think, possibly just abolish all of the titles and give us the name "Member of the States of Jersey" or something similar.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Several Members of the Assembly recently have expressed some misgivings, to put it mildly, about the efficiency of this Assembly. Does he share these misgivings and if so, what would he do to address it?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do have some misgivings about the efficiency but not necessarily for the same reasons. I forgot to say earlier in my speech, there are practical steps we could take. There are certain practices in the Assembly which are archaic. For example, why do we have 2 roll calls in the morning? I think, historically, it is because when there used to be train times in Jersey some of the trains would run 2 or 3 minutes late and it was to give people enough time to get into the Assembly for those purposes. That is one inefficiency we can get rid of. You do not need 2 roll calls in the morning. What we have is we have prayers, then you have a roll call and then the States is constitué, as they say in

French. I know I am going off topic slightly but the other thing is how on earth can we decide who should or should not be excused until the States is properly constituted? There are little anomalies like this that need to be resolved. But I think the question about efficiency that Deputy Southern has asked is a philosophical one about if you agree with a proposition then that is going to be a great proposition; that is a good use of States time. If you are fundamentally opposed to a Back- Bencher's proposition because you do not agree with it, that is called time-wasting. So I think we have to, at the moment, say every States Member has an ability to bring a proposition. I think the individual should do more research and make sure he or she has got support before bringing propositions which clearly even their comrades sometimes cannot support.

6. The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Within Standing Orders a number of terms of reference are highlighted and one such term is that Privileges and Procedures should take the necessary steps for the enforcement of the Code of Conduct for Members of the States and, in this context, to promote high standards among Members. Could the candidate explain how he proposes to address this particular term of reference?

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is a very good question; something I did not have time to address in my speech perhaps. I am of the opinion that we do have quite a few tools available already when it comes to disciplinary matters for States Members. We do not always use them. That is the problem. I think also, sometimes, there are certain types of behaviour which, depending who you are in the Assembly, seem to go unaccounted for. It seems to me that there have been instances where certain Members can do something that pretty much goes unpunished; where, if another Member did it, they would probably find that they are being caught for it. I think we have to be careful as a States body. It is very difficult and this is one of the inherent problems of disciplining what is essentially a private club. I do not say that disparagingly. That is essentially what we are.

[10:30]

To discipline our own Members when it is another States Member or body of Members doing that is delicate. So I think we need to look at the tools we have already got for disciplinary, such as censure motions perhaps. They should be used more often to give people a slap on the wrist, rather than necessarily inventing new draconian measures that would be difficult to implement. But, in principle, I do not have a problem looking at anything the Assembly would want me to look at with the committee.

7. Senator P.F. Routier:

During the last year the candidate resigned from P.P.C. and gave, as one of the reasons, that there was the inability of the P.P.C. to deal with a matter that related to staffing. P.P.C. did not, I understand, undertake looking into that because it was clearly not something to do with P.P.C. Can the candidate reassure Members that he would use the P.P.C. confined to its terms of reference rather than taking it wider than that?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am glad to answer this question. There were 2 reasons fundamentally for which I resigned. The first one not enough to make me resign and it was not the fact that P.P.C. could not deal with a particular area. It was to do with a former chief police officer who had made a complaint to P.P.C. It was the fact that none of the other members, apart from the chairman, were informed about this and when we got back home from holiday after Christmas members of the public and the media were asking us: "What happened? Why has this happened?" We said: "We do not know anything about this." It is the fact that that information was not shared to us and it was fundamental for the credibility, both for us as individual politicians and for the committee, that the information be

shared. I quite agree in the long-term it is probably nothing that should have been dealt with. The second issue, if I can just beg for the indulgence of the Assembly, is that we were dealing with disciplinary matters that we should not have been dealing with in the first place. There were things that were referred to P.P.C. vexatiously. There was clearly no case to answer. P.P.C. unanimously agreed that there was no case to answer but we still insisted on dragging somebody in to answer themselves and to defend the case for which there was clearly nothing to answer. That is not a good use of States Members' time and that is also not a good way to deal with individuals. We should decide, first of all, whether there is a case to answer and then get somebody in, because it can be quite a harrowing experience for many Members, especially if there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

8. Deputy J.A. Martin:

In the candidate's speech he mentioned where the fit in of Assistant Ministers comes as they are very quiet on the Standing Orders. Would the candidate pursue looking into this? Would he pursue, possibly, that when a Minister is elected he names his Assistant Ministers and basically sells them to the Assembly? Then, with that responsibility, in question time a Member asking an oral question can direct it to any Assistant Minister, a written oral question.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the answer is yes to that. I would be happy to look at any of these areas because they sound like things that are sensible to look at. I would just add again, whoever is chairing the next P.P.C. is bound by this Assembly or the previous Assembly to look at P.61 which looks broadly at all these issues. These are issues which are not being dealt with by the Electoral Commission but will need to slide in alongside them so we can look at things in the round. So, to reassure Deputy Martin, these issues should be considered in the round, whether it is me who is chairing up the committee or whether it is somebody else.

9. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I was sorry to hear the candidate speak about Members who were inherently against him. I think he is wrong about that. I think Members judge issues on their merits. But if he does have that view, how does he feel that he would be able to act impartially in relation to any complaint about a breach of the Code of Conduct if such a Member appeared before a panel on which he was sitting?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not have any problem acting impartially and if there was ever a situation in which I thought I might be conflicted I would excuse myself, but let us get back to the point. What I was talking about earlier, I was talking about politically being at a disadvantage because, of course, somebody from the minority party .. and let us not think that after this week we are under any illusions that we have party politics operating in this Assembly. If I have a minority political view in the Assembly that is not shared by majority, of course I am at an immediate disadvantage. That is not a criticism of anyone else. That is simply a statement of fact. But that does not mean that I cannot get on well with other Members of the Assembly and that is why I think it is important that we do look to have meetings where we socialise more. We do make sure that the Guernsey cricket match, which is just one example, is kept going because we have lost a number of the veterans for that. I think these are all the ways that we can ensure that, although there are valid political differences, we make sure that when it comes to a personal level these things do not cloud our judgment. I have absolutely no problem with that.

10. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

During the past 2 sessions of the Assembly there are matters which have been brought back to the States on numerous occasions. What is the candidate's opinion of this and what steps would he take in relation to this?

Deputy M. Tadier :

This is interesting because there have been various examples. The first thing I debated, probably, in the States was the rescindment of the incinerator. Now, I felt I was able to do that. It was not a decision that I had made and I thought it was of such fundamental important Island that we should correct what was a big mistake. We have also seen examples where many Members who usually would say: "This is terrible, we are debating the same things again," changed their opinion when it came to the debate about Senators, which it feels like we debated 10 times although it was probably only 3. We also went to the Privy Council to try and get a decision made by our Assembly overturned by somebody in the U.K. I think that is not healthy and I think it is also unhealthy when an individual gets elected and says: "I do not care that the States have opted for an Electoral Commission, I think we should do it this way and my opinion seems to be more valid than anybody else's." I do not think that is a valid position to start from either. So, hopefully, we will not try and reinvent the wheel and when it comes to electoral reform we will not be seeing propositions from individual States Members on their own particular hobby horses.

11. The Connétable of Trinity :

Would the candidate support time-limited speeches?

Deputy M. Tadier :

In principle I do not have a problem with that. I think it would depend on how they are set. Now, I think we have already made an in-principle decision to have time-limited speeches. The devil is always in the detail because we have not had anything come forward from that. I think we charged P.P.C. to look into it and they have not been able to progress it. I think it is more imperative that we become educated as States Members and we become realistic and learn that it is not beneficial for anyone to talk longer than necessary because you alienate people by doing that. I think lessons have been learnt. So I would favour, initially, light touch and voluntary compliance but I think if it became an recurrent problem in this Assembly we should need to look at that, as long as it was fairly across the board.

12. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

The candidate has referred to Members having a particular hobby horse. Does he have them and what are his views on the need for the chairman to be impartial?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Of course I have my own hobby horses. That is why I am politician, I think. We go into politics as there are issues about which we feel passionate. But when it comes to P.P.C. .. and I gave the example earlier. I brought a proposition not to remove the Constables but to have a referendum on whether the public thought the Constables should be in the States. Now, that has been done. It was not approved and that is not something I would seek to bring back because when you separate your roles, it is important to .. and it works for other Members in this Assembly. It is important that you separate your roles; that you know when you are the chairman of P.P.C. your job and your opinion does not count. It is about the other 6 people and your opinion or, rather, I should say your opinion is no more valuable or no less valuable than any other Member either on your committee or in the Assembly. That is, I think, a position which is fairly clear.

13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

What would the candidate do to improve the facilities for research for non-executive Members?

Deputy M. Tadier :

This is an area which I am fairly keen to pursue. I think, in the absence of official party politics in Jersey, you do not have the backing of a party which you might get in the U.K., but also the facilities, it has to be said, although they have improved very significantly in the last 10 years, are not quite what they should be. So I think we should look seriously to having a library. I think the coffee room downstairs is probably not used sufficiently. We should have maybe one dedicated member of staff. But I think that essentially we should be looking to educate our Members and provide facilities for them so that we can all do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

14. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The average length of speech for most Members is just over 6 minutes. Does the candidate agree that, far better than limiting speeches - although I would do that within reason - is to try and get a more inclusive Government, such as the Chief Minister has alluded to, but has not really done anything about? Then there would not be so many propositions. Does he think that is anything to think about?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Clearly, as I said, there are valid political differences and I think, to some extent, inclusion is a bit of a myth because you have to have a Council of Ministers that works cohesively together. What I would say is that it is incumbent on both sides. We have got to learn to test the water. There is no point in bringing propositions if you cannot even get 3 or 4 people to sign up to that. That does not mean we should change the Standing Orders. It means simply that Back-Benchers and Ministers should communicate better to make sure that, if stuff does not really need to come to the Assembly, it is resolved in other ways. But, of course, it must always be the right of any Member of this Assembly to bring propositions and also it is a valid way to raise concerns and to give them publicity, similar to an early day motion might be in the U.K.

The Bailiff :

Very well, that concludes questions for Deputy Tadier . So I will ask Deputy Tadier to withdraw again and we invite the Connétable of St. Mary to come to the Chamber. Very well, I invite the Connétable of St. Mary to address the Chamber.

3. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

There is a certain saying that it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind. Until very recently, I did not think that I would be putting my name forward again for a further term as P.P.C. chairman. But, for various reasons, here I am again, doing that very thing. Having already served 3 years on the committee, I stood for the position of chairman 3 years ago because I said there was unfinished business to attend to. Certainly there was. In 3 years I consider that the last P.P.C. achieved an incredible amount; I would almost say an unprecedented amount. But, once again, I stand before the Assembly and say there is more to do. The preparation of the Draft Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law was already on the agenda before I joined the committee in 2005 but still, 3 years ago, this needed more work before it could be finalised for debate. In fact, as it turned out, it needed a great deal more work but, following the sterling assistance of the Deputy Greffier and the law draftsman, I was pleased to be able to propose the draft law in May this year on behalf of the committee and I was delighted when it was adopted almost unanimously in third reading. There is, of course, still work to do on the part of the Executive in implementing the law and it will be necessary to monitor this closely.

[10:45]

Furthermore, while the law deals with public access to official information, the matter of States Members' own access needs further clarification. When I last stood for this position all, but 9 Members of the Assembly had just been sworn in at once. Of course, that was following 2 separate election periods when the 2 bites at the cherry was still possible and had drawn the familiar criticisms from the public. Following States debates on various aspects of reform of the composition and election of the States, P.P.C. carried through various changes in legislation, resulting in a single election day for all but 6 States Members and paving the way for the first 2 general elections to take place in 2014. Further reform of the States featured prominently during the recent election campaign and there is a public expectation that this will be achieved in the lifetime of this Assembly. The changes achieved by the previous P.P.C. will facilitate the timely implementation of those recommendations of any Electoral Commission that receive public endorsement. There is, however, more to be done. The way in which a great deal of business was debated by the old Assembly following the election must be reviewed. The single election day brought many challenges and was, on the whole, very successful. However, in the light of the experience gained during the course of the election, there can certainly be further enhancements and these must be collated and legislative changes brought while the experience is still fresh in our minds. I also know that many Members would like our procedures and the timings for electing Ministers and panel chairmen, among others, to be reviewed. This had been considered previously and was revisited followed a proposition brought by Deputy Tadier . It was anticipated that this

would be included in a wider Machinery of Government Review proposed by the Council of Ministers but, due to time pressures, this was withdrawn before it could be debated. The experience of the past few days has reinforced my belief that this matter must be dealt with before the next elections. The investigation of complaints is probably the least satisfying aspect of service on P.P.C. and yet the standard of States Members' behaviour was also a hot topic during the elections. I personally have been saddened that already in the new Assembly there have been acrimonious exchanges in the Chamber and instances of misuse of proceedings. This must be remedied before it becomes entrenched behaviour and this Assembly must aspire to better conduct and we must raise the bar now. Members must be mindful of the fact that the Code of Conduct is one that we have adopted for ourselves and that adherence is not option but an obligation. Three years ago I spoke of making enforcement of the Code of Conduct more meaningful and indeed P.P.C. brought amendments to Standing Orders which extended the range of sanctions available for serious breaches of the Code and introduced financial penalties to accompany serial suspensions. I would always hope that breaches of the Code would be rare, but there will inevitably be complaints which require investigation. The 2 previous P.P.C.s had different approaches to these investigations and, if re-elected, I would be inviting the new P.P.C. to consider at the outset how it would propose to handle any complaints within the parameters set by Standing Orders. The provision and use of States Members' facilities has been raised from time to time in the past and it is important to know how Members use the facilities, and also how they would like to use them, to ensure that we make the best and fairest use of what we have available to us. Past research led to various changes and also to trialling of a number of options. I would propose to invite comments from Members again early in the New Year once the newly elected Members have had the opportunity to establish their preferred working patterns. One important aspect, though, will be the

use of technology, especially in the Chamber. The Greffe have recently asked Members to confirm their requirements for hard copies of propositions and reports to be mailed to them. However, even Members, like myself, who prefer to work from electronic versions need to have those hard copies of propositions to take into the Chamber. The previous P.P.C. wanted to establish a trial of the use of silent hand-held devices in the Chamber which would allow Members to bring in and use their own preferred equipment. It was not possible to bring this back for debate soon enough to have a meaningful trial period before the new Assembly was sworn in. I believe, for many reasons, that this matter should be brought back in early course and that we need to be mindful of what has been adopted by other Assemblies to ascertain any effects on the special nature of parliamentary debate. I  have  had discussions with the Information Services  Department  who have themselves  been conducting trials on various devices to see how they interface with the States' operating platforms and standards. This is an area of rapid change and there is a real potential to increase efficiency if we handle it correctly. The terms of reference of the P.P.C. are clearly set out in Standing Orders and the topics I have mentioned so far cover only some aspects of the remit. I said that there was much work to be done and at the last meeting of P.P.C. we considered a legacy paper which will take forward many other matters which have been under consideration and which are in various stages of preparation. These range from relatively minor matters to more far-reaching reviews and will certainly give the new P.P.C. a starting point for consideration of its own work programme.

The nature of P.P.C., though, is to continually receive directions from the Assembly following the outcome of debates and so the committee is not always the master of its own destiny. This can be frustrating but it is in the nature of the beast. It means that P.P.C. must continually reprioritise work to ensure that legislative deadlines are met and sometimes worthwhile projects that are not time-critical are delayed, but these must not be allowed to fall from the work programme. I believe it is essential that some subjects are progressed by P.P.C. working parties in order to maximise the amount of work that can be taken forward by the committee as a whole and also to make use of individual Members' key skills and interests. I have spoken previously of the need for a new perspective on the committee but, of course, the chairman is only the first among equals. So this rejuvenation can come from the wider committee membership. If elected, I will be responsible for nominating 3 non-executive Members for the Assembly's consideration. Although it is, of course, necessary to wait until after the appointment of Assistant Ministers before making any suggestions, I am already encouraged that a number of new and experienced States Members have indicated their willingness to be on the committee. I consider that the combination of the fresh approach of Members new to the committee and my experience of steering complex committee legislation successfully through this Assembly would make for an extremely effective P.P.C. So I have said there is much to do and certainly some of it is bound to be controversial. Well, I have not shied away from controversy before and have been critical where it has been necessary to be so. I realise that this will not endear me to some Members of the Assembly, but then the chairmanship of P.P.C. is not to be undertaken lightly and might vie with the role of the Minister for Planning and Environment for the title of "poison chalice". There is, however, much about the role that is enjoyable and, as the role evolves, there have been some unexpected duties such as delivering various key speeches, which have presented new challenges that I have enjoyed meeting. I hope the Assembly will place its confidence in me to lead the committee for a further 3 years to take forward the work already in hand and to deliver the changes that the public are expecting this

Assembly to make.

The Bailiff :

Then we come to questions to the Connétable of St. Mary .

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

If elected, how would the chairman ensure consistency? We have heard about the Code of Conduct, very important. Yet just a few weeks ago we saw the new Senator Bailhache tell us about the need to respect each other; then the next paragraph he was quoted as implying that Senator Syvret was mentally ill, lost the plot. Will she be strong enough to make sure everyone is treated the same?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am certainly strong enough to make sure Members are treated the same. Of course, P.P.C. chairmanship is just one person on a 7-person committee. It is essential that, if I am elected, this Assembly gives me a strong committee to work with.

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Building on that question, the candidate mentioned acrimonious behaviour and the fact that she was determined to come down hard upon it, so to speak, through the committee. Could she give us her precise ideas as to how she would propose breaches of the Code be handled?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Let me be quite clear to begin with. I talked about acrimonious behaviour so far in this Assembly. Within the Assembly, of course, it is the President of the Assembly who deals with that and I think perhaps we need to have dialogue and, as States Members, we need to agree for ourselves to set ourselves high standards so that we do not continually call on the Chair to make what are very difficult interventions. As regards how I would deal with serious breaches of the Code, as I have

said, I intend to invite the new committee to discuss how it will deal with incidents. There are parameters set within Standing Orders, but there are different approaches that can be taken. For example, there is room to have a subcommittee and to invite Members who are not on the P.P.C. or States Members to sit in that committee. It has not been done recently and I would invite the new committee to discuss that particularly.

3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

The candidate spoke about there being much work to do and she also told us that some of it would be controversial. If elected then, what would be her priority and what would be those controversial issues?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Well, obviously a lot depends now on how this Assembly decides to take forward the work of the Electoral Commission that we have already agreed in principle because, depending on the parameters that we set for that, there will be more or less work for the P.P.C. to do in the short term until that Commission has reported on the subject of electoral reform. I think reform has got to be one of the key issues that the committee needs to deal with, but there may be a delay in the way we can take that up, depending on how the Commission shapes up. Controversy probably stems from the fact that there is a fine balance between ensuring that Members have the right to act in such a free way that their duties to their constituents are not kerbed but, at the same time, behaving within the bounds of acceptable behaviour. I think we need to strike a balance there and we need to ensure that we find the right path so that the public maintain respect in us, which in my experience in the last 3 years they have certainly lost.

4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

During the past 2 sessions there have been matters that have been brought back to the States on numerous occasions. What is the candidate's opinion of this and what steps would she take in relation to this?

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Well, Standing Orders, as the Senator knows, already impose time limits during which it is not possible to bring matters back. We had one particular aspect that came back several times. I think that was, unfortunately, because at the end the outcome did not change. It is a very fine line, again, between allowing the Assembly to flex its muscles and to rethink and to thwarting the progress that is made after a decision. Certainly, from my own personal experience, when the P.P.C. has been charged by a very, very strong majority to get on with work and has engaged an awful lot of its own time and, importantly, that of officers into building propositions to take forward, it is extremely unfortunate when they are challenged at the last moment. I think probably the views of the Assembly are quite widespread on that. But we have tightened some procedures already and I think there will be a need to have a holistic view at the way we tackle this.