States Meeting Transcript - 14th May 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 14th MAY 2014

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................3

1. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.33/2014)..............3

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..................................................3

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................6
2. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John:..........................................................8
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................8
4. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................9
5. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................12
6. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................14
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................15
8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................16
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................20
10. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................21
11. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................22
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................24
13. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................27 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier:..........................................................28
14. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:...................................................28
15. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................29
16. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................31
17. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................32 Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:.......................................................................33
18. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................34
19. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

20. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................38
21. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................41
22. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement:......................................................41
23. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................41
24. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................43
25. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................44
26. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................44
27. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................45
28. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................47

29. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................50
30. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................51 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................55
31. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................56

2. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................60

3. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/3014): fourth amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(4)) .....................................................................60

1.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................60

4. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 2..........................................................61

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................61
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................61

5. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): second amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(2)) - Article 2..........................................................61

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................61
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................62
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................62
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................62
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................62

6. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): Article 2 as amended ...........................................................................................64

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................64
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................64
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
4. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................65

5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................65
6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................66
   7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................68

8. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): sixth amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(6)) - Article 3..........................................................68

1. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................68
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................72
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................73
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................73
7. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................75
8. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................76
9. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................76
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................77

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................80

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Yesterday morning I was challenged by Senator Ozouf about my information on the Harcourt question, and my supplementary questions, to which I took offence because I was basically accused of being in somebody's pockets. The information came, in fact, from the Evening Post of the day before, which I did not have with me at the time, and in fact the question in part was in that I took it from that particular article so the States know I am in nobody's pocket. I am my own man.

The Bailiff :

I think probably most Members of the States have got that impression. [Laughter] Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I am grateful.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.33/2014) The Bailiff :

Very well, so we come then to Projet 33, Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law lodged by the Chief Minister and I will ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) (Law) 201-. A Law to amend further the States of Jersey Law 2005 and to make consequential amendments to other enactments. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.

The Bailiff :

Chief Minister, do you propose the principles?

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

The proposals contained within this draft law reflect those recommendations made by the Machinery of Government Review which found favour during an extensive process of consultation during the last 2 years. P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) established the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee in February 2012 in order to consider this matter. The Sub- Committee's interim report in April 2013 contained 7 recommendations and the final report in September 2013 contained a further 49 recommendations. These recommendations were then refined first through our in committee debate in October last year and then through further consultations with P.P.C., with the Chairmen's Committee and with the Council of Ministers. While some have sought to suggest that these are simply my proposals alone, the draft law is the outcome of a lot of hard work by all those Members and officers who contributed to the work of P.P.C. Sub-Committee over the last 2 years. So I would like to thank all those who have been involved and who have worked so diligently on these proposals, either on the Sub-Committee or as consultees. I think that probably the majority of Members of this Assembly have acted as consultees at some point during this process. This, of course, is the first stage of the proposals which comprise the changes to primary law. The next stage will be to consider the changes to Standing Orders, a draft of which is included with the report so that Members can see what will be proposed, of course subject to any amendments that the States may or may not agree today. Members will also have noted that the report includes a copy of the principles of the new Code of Conduct for Ministers and Assistant Ministers, which have been agreed by the current Council of Ministers. The draft law would require the Council to agree a code which applies to them and to Assistant Ministers and present it to the Assembly. The full code based on these agreed principles will be decided upon by the next Council of Ministers at their first meeting following their appointment as recommended. So if I could now just, hopefully briefly, run through the main proposals of this amendment. So, firstly minority government. Before noting the main changes contained within the draft law I should perhaps, in the interests of clarity, point out that the principle of minority government is upheld therefore the Troy rule is retained. The only change is that the specified limit of 21 Executive Members is moved to Standing Orders. This is simply so that any future Assembly can adjust this limit in line with the Troy rule more easily if, in future, there should be changes to the electoral makeup of the Assembly. We have the appointment of the Chief Minister and the Strategic Plan. These are 2 other areas which are unchanged by this draft law and which I think it is worth me reiterating this morning. Firstly, there is no change to the position whereby the Chief Minister is elected by the Assembly as of course recommended by Clothier. There will be some subsequent changes proposed to the timings of parts of the process when we come to consider Standing Orders in due course but the draft law retains the position whereby the Chief Minister is elected by a majority vote of this Assembly. Secondly, there is no proposed change to the process whereby the Strategic Plan is proposed by the Council and agreed by this Assembly. Therefore, this Assembly will continue to be asked to approve the common strategic policy of the Council which is extremely important in setting the programme and direction of government over the period of any given Assembly. If I turn now to collective responsibility. The changes proposed: the draft law would, for the first time, introduce collective responsibility for the Council of Ministers. As a result Ministers would be held to account jointly for decisions made by the Council and for policies proposed by the Council. The introduction of collective responsibility does not change the remit of the Council, as specified in the law, which, in essence, is to discuss, agree and co-ordinate matters of policy. I should also stress at this point that Assistant Ministers would be bound to a collective responsibility only, and that is important, only with the Minister that they assist. They would not be held to collective account for the policies advanced by other Ministers who they do not assist. Therefore, the extent of collective responsibility on any one matter would be limited to the lead Minister for a particular policy, the other members of the Council, assuming that the Council has to have agreed the policy - and that is important - and the Assistant Ministers attached to that one Minister who is bringing forward that particular policy or legislation. As Members will appreciate, this guarantees that those who are held collectively responsible for any one policy matter will always be far fewer than the maximum of 21 Members who will comprise the minority Executive Government. There is no question that collective responsibility will ever extend to all 21 Members. Members may also wish to note that the principles of a new Code of Conduct for Ministers already includes the agreement that collective responsibility can be set aside for issues of conscience or where there is an agreement to differ. In these circumstances there would be the freedom to act individually and to be held to account individually. The proposals also include that the Council may give directions to a Minister but only on matters of policy. Clothier recommended an ability to give directions, which has been a feature of the Isle of Man system for many years, but this has been constrained in the draft law to matters of policy only. The draft law states clearly that directions cannot be given to Ministers regarding the exercise of any statutory function nor in a way which would influence the exercise of a statutory function. Clothier also recommended that the Chief Minister should be able to dismiss a Minister and this is now proposed. The principles of a new Code of Conduct for Ministers include an agreement that any Minister affected by a re-organisation of the Executive should be notified, provided with a rationale and have the right to be heard. This principle will be built upon in the

final version of the full code so that a fair process is clearly established and well understood. Members may wish to note that the ability for an Assembly to bring a vote of no confidence in a Minister remains unchanged. Executive flexibility: in bringing forward these changes: it is proposed that there should be more flexibility within the Troy limit of 21 Executive Members to arrange the configuration of Ministers and Assistant Ministers in the way best suited to implementing the commitments made by the Chief Minister Designate when they are elected. A number of amendments lodged seek to introduce safeguards against such power as a result of this increased flexibility and therefore I will not speak at length about them at this stage.

[9:45]

I then come on to the appointment of Ministers by the Assembly. Clothier recommended that the Chief Minister should choose his or her team of Ministers which would be presented to the States for approval. The approach included in this draft law is an improved variant on that recommendation. The main change is that the Chief Minister Designate proposes the Council en bloc specifying which States Member is being proposed for which Ministerial office. There would be no scope for making alternative nominations. The intention is that the Chief Minister Designate can propose the overall team which is best suited to implement the commitments made to the Assembly when they are elected. The change also has the positive effect of moving us further away from personality driven politics. The Assembly would then vote to accept or reject the proposed Council as a whole. There would be 3 attempts to achieve a majority in favour of the proposed Council. After 3 attempts the decision would then be for the Chief Minister Designate alone. If Members were dissatisfied with the choices made then of course the Assembly could be asked whether they had confidence in the Chief Minister. This is a change from the Machinery of Government Review recommendation and this change was made upon advice in order to introduce a failsafe mechanism to ensure that a Council is formed and that any destabilising weeks do not pass before an Executive is put in place. When Clothier recommended that the Chief Minister should choose his or her team of Ministers, which would be presented to the States for approval, he introduced a theoretical problem. If the situation is reached whereby the Assembly does not agree with the Chief Minister's choice then either the Assembly must choose the team or the Chief Minister must choose the team. Either way, only half of Clothier's recommendation can be followed and Members will be asked to decide which half they consider most important. Once again, there are amendments in this regard and therefore I will not talk about those at this stage. Assistant Ministers: the Machinery of Government Review did not recommend any changes to the appointment process for Assistant Ministers which currently operates as Clothier recommended. The review did recommend that Ministers should be able to delegate a wider range of functions to Assistant Ministers and so this has been included in the proposals as part of a wider package to ensure that all Assistant Minister posts are more meaningful and substantive. Although not the recommendation of the review I note that the appointment process for Assistant Ministers again is subject to amendment so we will come to that at a later stage. Mid-term changes: in relation to mid-term changes the draft law includes the provision that the Chief Minister may propose that a Minister be moved between offices or that a Ministerial office is changed but that it is the Assembly which decides upon any such change. When a vacancy arises in a Ministerial office then the Chief Minister may nominate a Member for appointment to a vacant office but again it is the Assembly who decides upon the appointment. In both these circumstances, if the Assembly does not agree with the Chief Minister's proposals, then they simply fall away and the Chief Minister would continue to present alternative proposals until they find favour with the Assembly. Again, there are amendments in this area so I will not dwell upon those at this stage. Scrutiny: there is a small change to the provisions in the primary law relating to Scrutiny. The draft law continues to require the Assembly to conduct scrutiny but ceases to be prescriptive about the number of panels and how they are appointed. This change in the primary law was not of itself a recommendation of the Machinery of Government Review however I understand that there are ongoing discussions

regarding Scrutiny functions and so this change will enable matters to be decided upon by the Assembly at the next stage when Standing Orders are to be considered. So, in conclusion I should record that although these proposals are, with the minor exceptions noted, those made by the Machinery of Government Review and not my own, I believe that the 2-year process of consultation has produced a good set of recommendations which I am pleased to be able to bring to the Assembly and support this morning. The proposals introduce some important Clothier recommendations which have previously been omitted from the law. Members, of course, will recall, and the Connétable of St. John continually reminds us, that Sir Cecil's advice was that his recommendations were a comprehensive plan for the revision of the machinery of government in Jersey. That the plan should be implemented as a whole rather than piecemeal and his warning that it is no use assembling only some parts of a machine and then expecting it to work well. I believe, therefore, that these proposals, if implemented, would lead to better and more effective government which will in turn be capable of achieving more on behalf of the people of Jersey in accordance with the will of this Assembly. I also believe, and for me this is a fundamental reason for supporting these proposals, that they will ensure more accountability of the Executive not only in this Assembly but to the Islanders that we all serve. Therefore, I hope that Members will support these principles.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles?

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

Yes, I wanted to speak early because I will have to leave before lunch for a funeral unfortunately. I am extremely disappointed with this proposition. Members will note from the report accompanying it that I was a member of the P.P.C. Sub-Panel which tried to find solutions to the problems in our present Ministerial government. I was also, again as some Members will be aware, a member of committees in previous Assemblies, Privileges and Procedures Committees and so forth, and I spent a number of years looking for a solution to these apparently intractable issues. I have to say the conclusion from all these hundreds of hours of work is quite straightforward and that is that Ministerial government, as presently constituted, is unsuitable for Jersey because we are all individual Members, that we work on a party system but not as we are presently elected. Of course if we belong to political parties where the public elect party members on the basis of a collective manifesto instead of as individual things would be quite different but that is not the case. I recall Senator Bailhache saying a few months ago, and I hope I understood him correctly, that diluted democracy was the price one paid for Ministerial government. The truth of the matter is our previous committee system - and I make no apologies for keeping on about it - was clearly not perfect but I believe it was measurably better than what we have got now because those who argue against the previous system normally do so on a single basis and that was decision-making took too long. Well, the decision-making is just as quick as it is today. Where the delay was is what followed the decision because a committee's decision languished for a few weeks as an Act. That was procedural

Senator P.M. Bailhache : Will the Deputy give way? Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: Certainly.

Senator P.M. Bailhache :

I must confess that I do not recall ever saying what was attributed to me by the Deputy and I fear that his recollection is not correct in that respect. I do not think that I ever spoke of Ministerial government in that sense.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

That was my understanding. If I have misquoted the Senator I do apologise. I obviously have not had the time to look up Hansard but it was something along those lines I do recollect but, as I say, I do apologise if I have misquoted the Senator. As I was saying, a procedural issue that could easily have been addressed with today's technology because you have got to remember back in those days we did not use emails and mobile phones were a novelty. Everything was done by fax or by hand. So we changed the system which, in my mind, does not suit and it has certainly cost us a lot of money. I mean the Chief Minister's Department, for example, costs approximately £20 million a year to run. We did not have one previously. In his report the Chief Minister acknowledges the 6 main failings of the Ministerial system but then sadly proceeds to basically ignore them with proposed changes that in my mind would make the situation worse. We were told Ministerial government, when we were sold it in the first place, would save money and enable quicker decisions. Well, in fact it has cost a small fortune and the silo mentality that existed before is alive and well. The Chief Minister's answer to silo mentality is collective responsibility but that is not the panacea because it avoids the issue and in fact in my mind exacerbates the problem because it will concentrate power in a few hands even more than at present. What does collective responsibility do for democracy in a party political system? The public do not elect individuals; they elect a member of a party because he or she represents their preferred manifesto. It is quite reasonable, in fact imperative, for collective responsibility to exist in those circumstances. How else would that manifesto be delivered? However, when Members are elected each on their individual manifesto, requiring them later to behave collectively in my view disenfranchises those who elected them because it makes their manifesto meaningless. That effectively means that anyone who becomes a Minister automatically disconnects from the public. In fact virtually every Member disconnects from the public and that is one of the reasons the public are so fed up with this Assembly at the present time. Under the previous system a candidate might have, for example, promised his constituents he would improve the drains and traffic in his Parish. The Constable of St. John springs to mind on that issue. Of course on entering the States under the present system your ability to have any direct input into the issues that were in your manifesto is virtually nil. Previously you would have got yourself on to a committee on drains - and that is you would have got yourself on to the Public Service Committee - and had a chance to have direct input into policy. Now all you can do is review decisions which somebody else has made with second-hand information. Under the present system unless the elected candidate becomes a Minister, in which case he will be bound by collective responsibility; that will mean throwing away his manifesto. He or she, as I said, will find there is no opportunity to affect policy. The manifesto becomes meaningless and that is one of the main reasons why the public are so fed up. Hardly a satisfactory situation. It really does make me despair and I wonder how long we can go on like this. What is needed, in my view, is either a reversion to committees or preferably a hybrid system as the U.K. (United Kingdom) councils in certain parts of the U.K. are now doing. The problems that need resolution are quite clear. The Chief Minister lists them on page 5 but sadly appears to then ignore them. He wants collective responsibility so that he, essentially, is the political party. He does not want the States to have any say in who his Ministers are so he puts a bunch of names forward and we have no control over who goes to which Ministry. He could change or fire Ministers by Order, meaning we only get to know about it a week after it happened and then if we want to reverse that it would be a month before we could so. That is the way Orders work and so it goes on. The States have become a real mess. It really does irritate me. It is almost a single party becoming increasingly unaccountable to either the public or even other Members and while the rest of us are kept overwhelmed with paperwork, reviews and the like, we have no time to find out what is really going on anyway and when we do it is too late. I have tried for years to change this unacceptable "not fit for purpose" system and, as I have said, I have devoted hundreds and hundreds of hours to it. I always come up against a brick wall. Sheer obstinacy by some and lack of awareness by others. I have got to the stage that I was not really intending standing at the next election but the more I think about this I am rapidly changing my mind because we have to break this mould. Because if we cannot break this mould the only message I will be able to give my fellow Islanders is, there is no hope. I am disappointed with the Chief Minister's proposition ignoring those main issues because, as his report says, I was a member of the Privileges and Procedures Committee Working Party that was looking into this but most of the work we did and the conclusions we came to seem to have been bypassed.

[10:00]

So needless to say I will not be supporting the Chief Minister's proposed change.

2. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. John :

Just a few words. I despair, to some degree, at the speech that we have just heard from the Deputy of St. Clement. To listen to him one would tend think that there was no such thing as a Strategic Plan. There was no such thing as a Medium-Term Financial Plan. There is no such thing as amendments to the Island Plan, which we are going to be debating in a few weeks with 11 amendments, as I understand it. So I am afraid I just do not understand. There are many opportunities for States Members to have influence on the policies of this Assembly that are finally adopted through Strategic Plans and through Medium-Term Growth Plans. That is the system that we have adopted and although I understand what he is saying, and I understand that there are some Members that would prefer to go back to a committee system, it is not - I believe - going to happen so talking about it is rather a bit of a waste of time I am afraid. We need to make the existing system that we have got better and the Chief Minister has just outlined some ways that that could happen.

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

I am surprised at how quiet it is. Have we all gone to sleep? Right, here we are. We almost addressed the central issue of what is wrong with our system yesterday. We failed to do so. So here we are facing the basic democratic deficit. The Chief Minister, in proposing his changes, said, and this is absolutely outrageous: "This makes our system more accountable not only to this House but to the electorate as well." This is a complete falsehood. We just heard mention of a Strategic Plan and Medium-Term Business Plans which we get to see 6 months after any election. That is not accountable. That is something made after the control point. In reality the Strategic Plan, which contains lovely, high level nice wishes, nice-to-haves, is not subject well, you can amend it all you like, but it does not indicate policy. It does not indicate actions. It says, we will look after our young people. We will look after our elderly. We will look after the disabled. Does it say how? It never says how. As far as the mechanics of the whole thing are, there is no accountability either inside or outside to the voters in these proposals. What there is instead is a concentration of power. Again, we made one enormous concentration of power when we changed the system and did not put the proper checks and balances in, did not work towards a party system which could have been made to work, why, because parties stand on policies, manifestos, which are put to the people before anything else happens. Imagine then – imagine - one of our bright talented Senators on the benches there, let us say, just by way of example, Senator Farnham . He campaigns in the coming election on a single fiery issue that he is absolutely committed to. Let us say, picking something at random, free G.P. (general practitioner) visits for a certain section of society, the least well-off, and he fights for that and he tops the poll. He is magnificent. This is a real crusading

campaign. He tops the poll, this is what I am going to do. He does not get picked as the Minister for Social Security or the Minister for Health and Social Services. What does he do? Nonetheless the people have said: "This is the person we want. This is the policy we want." The Chief Minister says: "Ah, my list of priorities says something different. We cannot afford that yet. I am going to park that one. I will not have it. But I want to appoint you because you are a talented and able Senator, politician, so I appoint you to a position but we have got collective responsibility. You must not argue with me on policy. On policy, I can direct you. So let us see less about this fiery new policy that you want. We, collectively, have decided we are not going to do it yet. We will park it." What does that do for the electorate out there, the person that topped the poll, they have voted for en masse, overwhelmingly? Can they see that delivered? No. What does that do for the democratic deficit? Well, it widens it. Do people go around saying: "Why do I bother? Why do I vote? It never changes anything. Nothing happens."? That would be the reality. That is the reality of what is being proposed here. The safety net of anybody can affect the Strategic Plan is a sop - is a sop. It is not hard and fast policy. It is not how we will do things. It is not priorities. It is a wish list which means nothing. How many times - think about it - in the last 3 years have you thought to yourself: "Ah ha, that is what this piece of Strategic Plan means? It is going to happen. I can see where it will happen. I can see the policy now and the mechanism by which this bit of the Strategic Plan is being delivered." How many times? If anybody can manage more than one - if one - I would be very surprised because I certainly cannot. Strategic Plan: there is no real connection between what goes on and what is delivered in the vast majority of cases. To say: "Well, you have got influence on that as a Chamber, as a Back-Bencher", is a nonsense. We see day in and day out Back-Bencher proposals come to this House at the Chamber and we see the whip operating over lunchtime or whatever. We see the messages popping out of people's texts: "Oh, yes, which way are you going to vote on this? Oh, right." We see the party system working time and time again.

To impose collective responsibility in no matter how narrow a remit is a step away from democracy and to suggest that this makes the system more accountable to the electorate is a downright lie. It is wrong. It is false. This does not do anything.

The Bailiff :

Sorry, you are not able to accuse somebody of lying and you know that. You can simply say it is inaccurate or incorrect.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I can say it is give me a word.

The Bailiff :

You can say inaccurate or incorrect.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

It is absolutely incorrect. Can I say it is false? The Bailiff :

You can say it is untrue. [Laughter]

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Well, it is untrue, incorrect and false and it is shameful that the Chief Minister suggests it otherwise.

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

Thank you for the Deputy for giving me all those reasons why this is the debate. The word I use again, and I keep having to use this word when the Chief Minister spoke, was hypocrite. He said, what we did, we cherry-picked Clothier. We have cherry-picked part of the Machinery of Government. What we did not do is introduce Clothier in the whole because this is what we should be. The role of Senator should be abolished. Constables should cease to be ex-officio Members of the States. The Committee of Connétable s should be consulted whenever their Parish is particularly affected. An Electoral Commission to reassign the vacant seats among the Parishes will happen and all Members of the States of Jersey enjoy the title well, I will not even call us what people out there call us, but we would be something like a member of the States of Jersey. Now, this was 2002. We have tinkered and we have tackled and we have wrestled with the machinery. I was in the House and I know what the Constable of St. John at the time we were promised meat on the bone after and we got it wrong because we did not introduce I said at the time we keep getting promised jam tomorrow, jam tomorrow. The States Assembly is made up how it is, we have a lot of power already. I have been 6 years in both, at non-machinery of government and before the Ministerial system, and the power for Back-Benchers is ebbing away. This just gives it more and more. I have lost but at 10(1), if the Deputy could get it back up for me, Clothier even says: "We must avoid under this new machinery an Executive, a dictatorship." A dictatorship. In his words "we must avoid". How far on down the line are we going? As I say, this is the debate. This rubbish needs to be chucked out. I am sorry if that is not parliamentary. This mishmash of, let us amend it, and there are amendments coming down the line that some people will think will make it better or some people will think: "Well, if we do not do this part I might be able to make Scrutiny a bit better." No. You cannot give more power. The Chief Minister this is the debate. Anyone can sit on their hands. If you throw out the principles of the law, out the law goes. Thank you. So, let us not worry about what is coming down the line. Well, we have heard, we will all be included in the Strategic Plan but did we not have a debate only 2 weeks ago telling us the policy of the Strategic Plan on immigration could not stand alone. We had to have another

debate. So what is the Strategic Plan? It is a wish list and you get lots of little words changed in it but the direction is the direction of the Chief Minister and at the moment his Ministers, who are designated in a seat and approved by this House. As the Minister for Treasury and Resources pointed out yesterday he was not the choice of the Minister, he turned out to be the choice of the House. We will not have any of this. We will not know who they are. There is an amendment in for Assistant Ministers which I have I do not relish debating it. There are a couple of amendments in but again who are these Assistant Ministers? Who will have all the information? We will be bound by the collective. If I am bound in as my role is now Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services I have surely got to know what is going on in Health and Social Security and other remits that affects us across the board. Where will I be able to step out say on long-term care? They collect the money, we provide the services. Where would I be able to step out on that? Very unclear lines. Assistant Ministers have been consulted once on this and I think me and my other Assistant Minister were the only 2 who turned up. No other Assistant Minister turned up to say: "How would you see it?" Well, I would see it, be sitting behind whoever Minister I was, there would be the inner circle and there would be me sitting behind all their necks. Would I get the job? But then again I do not want this debate to go that far. I have to spell this out because people have to realise this is not just a tweaking. It might be the final people said it at the open Town Hall meeting. This might be the nail in the coffin that is needed because if this is voted through today the rest of us, as I say as Back-Benchers, or an effective Constable, you have no chance of bringing alternative propositions to the collective, the Council, their Assistants and it does not matter. As I said yesterday if there are only 21 of them there, also always like-minded political people elected, that is totally fine, but they will always vote with the Council because it is the way they think anyway. Now let us say all of this is introducing I think I said it years and years ago but we had a fantastic Deputy and it could be Deputy Southern and he made Chief Minister. How many in here would be happy with all of his policies and his collective because you are politically opposed to him? But you have got the same budget. So what I am always saying is, if you are prepared to give power or a system it has got to work with anybody who is in that system, at the top or at the bottom.

[10:15]

This does not work now. This is a much worse example of giving much more power. The 3 strikes and you are out has gone. Let us put up every Muppet in the Assembly sorry, everybody really is not going to get elected. Let me pick Deputy Southern for Minister for Social Security. I am not even saying because I do not need to, and these are going to be voted out on the fourth day on the hill. I see the light. I come into the Assembly with the people I want in my Ministry. No. There is nothing here to we fought for this under amendments to the .. when Machinery of Government went through without the checks and balances of all being elected as a Member of the States of Jersey, or whatever you want to call us, we fought for all these amendments so people in this House could stand, could put their name forward. Last time I was so annoyed that the Minister for Home Affairs was not being challenged I challenged him and surprisingly, and very scarily for me, I was not too far off getting the job. But that is what I call democracy and once .. I mean we did not vote for the Chief Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for External Relations to come from the Senatorial benches, so voters .. and the last debate - and I do think we did the Deputy of Grouville a disservice in making her carry on and summing up quickly and some people have gone, I mean you could tell by the vote at the end - but the Constable of St. Mary said the election might focus on what would you do if you were Chief Minister, what would you do if you were Minister for Treasury and Resources at the Senatorials? Well what a focus if you were going to be Chief Minister. But we are not there. That was a backstop. I still would not have supported this. I can see it. I have seen it. Just when you think to yourself, the amount of people, and the biggest debate that I have brought - a proper decision - on the police station, I had people 3 days previous telling me: "You have my support." On the numbers I was very, very close. On the day of the debate I had £2 million of Chief Officers in the back and everything I said was picked up on. Even people missed the amendment and I forgot to correct them, it was not down to the Minister for Planning and Environment at the end, it was down to the Minister for Treasury and Resources sending back to Home Affairs. I had amended my own proposition. That was not picked up in my summing up; it was picked up by them out there where a couple of people changed their vote. So what hope do you have when you make this a team who are bound by collective responsibility? Do not worry about .. yes, of course they are going to have a vote with their conscience on maybe same-sex marriage, abortions, or whatever, that will be a conscience vote and some will .. if they did not have that they would not go for the Ministerial job in the .. that is all

that means. It does not mean: "Hmm, do I have a conscience about where they are going to put the new hospital?" "No, this is where we are putting the new hospital and you are going to vote with that in the House." That is not a conscience vote. Today, this is a debate on the principles, there is enough power in the House until we do sort out Clothier and nobody takes the name in vain of Sir Cecil Clothier, he has done a fantastic job. I read it cold in 2000. The more and more I read it, it makes perfect sense, but he did not envisage this machinery of government with this makeup of States Assembly. The 2 go hand-in-hand. This needs to be thrown out today at the principles. The power is already there. Nothing really does not get past the Chief Minister, and so what if he has to be elected by this House, his team has to be elected by this House, and, oh yes, and they have to come here when they want to fire someone. Just because they are making the Council of Ministers meetings go on a bit longer because they bring a bit of debate; that is no reason to sack a Minister. I am absolutely hoping that people are listening to me because I have finished. I do hope we have a proper debate on these principles because there is nothing in the amendments, not one thing in the amendments that makes this overarching P.33 any more democratic. We need, the people out there need to see us doing .. having some say in questioning who is going to be the Chief, who is Council going to be, and that is as far as we need to go until we do, as I say, amend the rest.

5. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

Preparing for this States debate I was rereading my 2011 .. my first election manifesto. I said I was unhappy with the workings of the Ministerial system, it excluded many Members who have a valuable contribution to make, I want to see greater openness and transparency and make better use of Members' skills by involving them, and I believe that with the right leadership there is the potential to significantly reduce the dysfunctional conflict between the Executive and Non- Executive Members and restore public confidence in our Government. Key is I want to see more checks and balances being introduced into decisions, which I do not consider can be safely made by one person alone. I said that because I was an ex-civil servant with 25 years. I left the States employment in 2004, had 7 years in the private sector, and I watched from a distance, taking no part at all in public affairs during that period, seeing how our Island Government had become disconnected from the people. The move from committee system, the way the Ministerial system was implemented, and I spent the last 2 years of my time as a civil servant setting up many of the mechanics of the Ministerial system, and I was party to the political debates that took place. I am absolutely sure that what we have finished up is not the vision of those people that supported it. We have ended up with a system, which I think radically needs change. So I saw, yes, I accept that the committee system was said to be slow, it was said to be expensive, but of course I have not seen any savings. On the contrary, I think public expenditure has doubled in that period, so in that respect it has failed. The administrative costs I do not think we ever said were expensive, but the point was that all Members did have a say, they were contributing to Government, and I think it had its own almost internal etiquette and self-regulation in many ways about Members' conduct and the rules about when Members declared interests or withdrew from decisions. It was almost quasi- party like, and I was trying to work it out, for 13 of those years I was a Chief Officer and for another 3 years I was a senior officer for a number of the committees. I think over my time, over 1,000 meetings I probably went to and how many Presidents, I have lost count, and came to the conclusion in my experience decisions were always improved by the input of more than one Member. I cannot recall an occasion when a meeting was made by one person alone and the result was effective. So I volunteered, as soon as I came on board I was elected. I was surprised to be elected, I was pleased, but I worked on the Machinery of Government Working Group that Deputy Baudains spoke about and we did work hard on a programme of interviews of all Members and Ministers and clearly of course the defects in the system. There was absolute consensus on that, and those are recorded absolutely in detail in the Machinery of Government Report at R.105 and they are summarised in my own amendment - amendment 3 - where I have set down blurred lines of accountability, prevailing silos, insufficient inclusivity, insufficient use of Members' talents and expertise, ineffective communication, and a Civil Service that wields too much power. Those are the symptoms and so when we come today I am looking at what do we have that is going to address those issues? So I worked hard, and I probably spent hundreds of hours I think, just like Deputy Baudains, and of course there were .. and of course honestly here, when one looked at the membership of that Sub-Committee we had the classic split, well used in committee days, where we had on the one hand Members whose vision of democracy was tight control, centralist vision; and on the other hand we had those Members at the other end of the spectrum who want to see a more devolved .. their vision is more devolved distributed decision-making in Government. So, for example, we had Members limited with Senator Norman on one hand and Deputy Baudains on the other, and there was .. we recognised the difficulties that the present Chief Minister finds himself in, although certainly from my point of view, this is a personal issue, I do not think I remember hearing previous Chief Ministers making those comments. I think Senator Walker seemed to successfully lead the States, and in fact Senator Le Sueur , our second Chief Minister, was a strong member of a working group of States Members that proposed the system be modified in P.120 and P.17 in 2010, which was rejected by a narrow vote. So, all right, but we still accept though that the difficulty the Chief Minister finds himself in, he has Ministers that have a

corporation sole, and I was trying to work out, are they detached or are they semi-detached; not quite sure. But anyway .. and of course what we were hearing is there is not the coherence of policy sharing and common understanding and common vision between the Ministers. Of course this was supposed to be one of the by-products of the Ministerial system that we would have this, and frankly I think we have probably come to worse than the committee system, but we accepted that the Chief Minister was in a highly unsatisfactory position there. The rules of hiring and firing were unsatisfactory for both the Chief Minister and the Ministers. So I certainly formed the view the Chief Minister was almost like a chairman of a committee without any power. The expectations of him yet were enormously high, the whole public of the Island, because I think he is the public's Chief Minister, the Island's Chief Minister, and not the States Assembly. I disagree what Senator Ozouf said yesterday. That is the expectation of him. So I absolutely do share his concerns and so I can see why he has required this matter to be addressed, so I am not being critical about that. I am critical about where we have finished up and the proposals on the table. Now the Sub-Committee of course had this debate when we produced our report as to where would the balance be and so, like all committees, members of us had to compromise, and it was a key, from my point of view as a member, that compromise lie. The report included not only changes to the Chief Minister's power and authority, but it did provide checks and balances. Those checks and balances were an integral part of the P.P.C. Sub-Committee, which I was a member of. In there, section 14 records the 7 recommendations. Now obviously there was what happened then, of course. I found myself certainly in a dilemma in that Sub-Committee. Was I going to go along with it and I decided that I would be prepared to put my name to the recommendations as a whole, but providing the changes were balanced by checks and balances and the methods included there was the involvement of what were called in that paper - but I accept it was poorly drafted and defined at that time - was N.E.M. (Non-Executive Members). Of course these were based very closely on those debates that I referred to in 2010 of which the previous Chief Minister was a party to those proposals. The in

committee debate, from my point of view, was a personal disaster. I think I must have been asleep or something. Now how about this, this just shows how naïve one can be in Jersey politics. I found myself, I think probably because I missed the meeting, being given the job of proposing a part of the machinery of government change, which was the reluctant part that I went along with, which was the Chief Minister's strengthenings. Maybe I did too good a job because they have ended up here. But of course the bit that I really was trying to make was left to my colleague Deputy Le Fondré, and I am sure he did an excellent job, but I felt myself is that this Assembly, when that in committee debate took place, did not fully get the gist of what the purpose of this was and what the whole point of checks and balances and how we could not cherry-pick the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee's proposal. Of course it was compounded then. The Constable of St. Clement, he ably chaired that debate, but of course in the way of these things it was run to an absolute strict timetable, so I did not even get a chance to speak in that debate.

[10:30]

Of course naïvely I then was elected on the P.P.C. and I sought to influence after that: "All right, what are we going to do? We have had this in committee debate." Everybody said to me: "Nobody knows, in committee debate is a waste of space. You never get any decisions out of them." So they formed a group and of course I was not included in the group. I clearly felt that I was .. but the Chief Minister was on the group and so the Chief Minister clearly was able to ensure that those ideas that were .. they were not given consideration. Of course I was particularly strong, because I wrote to the group, and I said: "I want you please to look at the hybrid ideas that Deputy Baudains spoke about before you go steaming into the States with these changes. I think N.E.M.s has not been properly sold to the States, Members do not understand it, they think it is a waste of space, it has a real point. I want you to look at Cornwall because, for the very same symptoms, Cornwall threw out its elected leader". Do not know exactly the details but there were a lot of symptoms in

Cornwall, from what we have heard, which were common to some of the problems we are having in Jersey with the way our Government works." They embarked upon a journey in common with what Deputy Baudains said: "Shall we go back to the committees?" which incidentally U.K. legislation in 2011 allowed major local authorities to do. Cornwall had introduced, unique in the U.K. - and of course their strong independence, exactly the same as Jersey's tradition is - a hybrid system and I wanted this to be looked at. Of course I was not going to give up there and that is why I proposed to P.P.C. that we pursue Cornwall notwithstanding P.33, and you have seen my amendments, which, if Members do not listen to what I say and they approve this P.33 in principle, we will be discussing, and I am afraid, Members, you are going to have to listen to me again. But Cornwall .. we had a videoconference with Cornwall for 4 hours. P.P.C. members had a videoconference with Cornwall last week. We heard from the leader of the Council, we heard from the leader of the various opposition groups, we heard from the senior civil servants, we heard from a wide range of elected member representations. Any doubts whatsoever of the benefits of the hybrid system of having some checks and balances on your Ministerial, or in their case .. was dispelled from my mind. I came away; this is absolutely the right way to do it. We may not do in exactly the same way, but they understand the principle better than us. So here we are, obviously events have .. we have had that presentation, P.P.C., that issue is on its plate and you have seen my amendment because obviously I think it is highly relevant to this decision. So the problem I have is, as it stands today, without the checks and balances, I think what we have is a set of proposals, which are the end of independent Members, the end of independent opinion in Jersey. The Troy rule does not work, and I have sat here for nearly 3 years, and I can tell you that under the committee system Members were much more aware of the issues about possibilities of votes of no confidence and much more careful to ensure that the views of Members and the views of the public were taken into account, because what we had, we have had not a single vote of no confidence. We have had messing around with lodging it and taking it out and putting it in again and so on. I mean

it is ridiculous. That is not an effective check and nobody is going to press the nuclear button. What we need to do is be able to deal with areas where things are not working well, particular parts of our Government, which are not doing as well as expected. Members have that duty to take action there and I do not think these proposals help us at all. Scrutiny: the Chief Minister says there are going to be proposals in Scrutiny. I absolutely got, from listening to Cornwall the other day, that, no, I think if this is introduced, P.33, without the missing ingredients, without those checks and balances, Scrutiny system is going to be much weakened. It is already weak. So the choice I have is unfortunately we are having this vote in kind of a rush because people are not prepared to look at ideas, ideas such as at Cornwall where they spent 2 years, the whole community engagement process, right the way throughout the county and all of their districts and areas, all their political parties, they spent 2 years, they had expert advice. I do not know if Members have seen the website, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of advice and guidance coming from all sorts of expert university bodies, all of which has been reflected, and they introduced it and that now is bedding down. I think, here we are, we are in a rush, we do not see any point having a look at those ideas, and so we have to decide. If we are forced to that decision today, I am going to stand on my election manifesto; I do not think this will advance improvement on Ministerial government. If it did have the checks and balances I would be prepared to go along with it but they are not there and in its absence I am not going to support this debate on P.33 principles.

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

The rot, in my view, set in, in 2005 when I think this Assembly was hoodwinked into believing the suggestions that were made or promises that were given that the sovereignty of the ability of this House to tell Ministers what they may or may not do was going to remain unchanged. Quite clearly, since that time, we have taken a long time to realise it and for me today this is the death knell, if you like, for involvement by the majority of Members of this Assembly in Government.

That said, and there is nothing wrong with minority rule, but inevitably minority rule that is forced upon the public and in a way that is pretended to be a leadership, it is not democracy in my view. The suggestions that are being made in order to place more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, having made a contrary decision yesterday when there was an opportunity to at least pull back some semblance of fairness into the system by suggesting that the electorate at least be given an opportunity to choose that Member who will be dictating the strategies and the policies that the Island wishes or does not wish to move along with, it was denied. So we have a situation today where, as I say, we are moving towards the final death knell for any independent thought. There are more ways than we know to crack and egg or to solve a problem and I think some of the analysis that has been brought to bear to suggest that, because of the reasons that our particular government system is broken that we really need to take this extreme step to put more and more of those eggs into one particular basket. I never voted for the Ministerial system, although I can see a Ministerial system having some value if it is run with political parties. There seems to me that those who are promoting their own system of parties do not wish to do it in as open a fashion as perhaps we should be adopting. This really means that what we have today is the final step in what will have been a bloodless coup and most Members, if this goes through, will find themselves in a position of not being able to, irrespective of what their electorate have voted them in for, be in a position to involve themselves in the strategy or the policy-setting of the Government in ways that are meaningful, both to the electorate and to themselves. So, if this does go ahead, I think we will have a reduction in the number of Members; there will be no reason for sitting in this Assembly. Little of what is discussed these days does have a direct bearing on Ministers in a way that can bind their hands. We only have to look at all the propositions by and large and see the new way that we propose propositions. Previously the collective decision-making powers were within this Assembly, but this Assembly, as we all know, has been moved to a Legislative Assembly where we mainly discuss bringing forward laws. If we do move ahead in this direction, I think it will only be a short period of time before even that function that is required of ordinary States Members will be denied to those Members. But, not to worry, we will have a small Ministerial complement of 2, maybe 3 Members, we will be paying them 2 or 3 or maybe even 10 times as much because they will be doing all the work, and we will not be able to hold them accountable except by bringing forward votes of no confidence or bringing the Government down at regular intervals or irregular intervals in order to make the changes or even to come to this Assembly to ask for further discussion on those policies to be considered before we move in whatever direction. So it is a little bit morose, I know it is probably too early in the morning, but since 2005 the writing has been on the wall, today is D-Day. If we vote for these proposals I do not think it is worth being a Minister, I do not think it is worth being a Member of the States of Jersey, because effectively we are being

denied our opportunities to be effective Members in a way that is democratically accountable.

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

Those immortal words "I was not going to speak": having a calumny put against me yesterday that I am not interested in reform, I did not react at the time. I find that an absolutely ridiculous statement, particularly from the person who made it, whose notion of equality is everything is equal up to a certain point. You either have equality or you do not; you cannot have partial equality. I am quite prepared, with others, to have my reform credentials put out there, the votes that I have taken part in. I have no problem whatsoever that they be put out there. But to string together a series of highly stale clichés and pretend that is an opposition speech against someone who has spoken for reform I find is symptomatic of the way things are going that that kind of cheap political trickery has to be used. But more important, the Constables, as we know, have a duty .. not a duty, but a very strong responsibility under the Code of 1771 to consult their parishioners as to major, or indeed any pieces of legislation. That is embodied in the Code and sadly that has not been used much, as we well know. But I would suggest, if they went out to their parishioners on this issue, they I think would find a very, very strong resistance to this issue, to this proposal. The public are very worried. They do not quite know in detail why they are worried but they are enormously worried about what is happening. To that extent, I totally agree with them, and I think we have to give expression to those views. I hope the Constables will express that view. I have spoken, or a lot have spoken to me, and I have been amazed at the number of people who you would put at the traditional end of Jersey politics and who often would not necessarily share my views, have said they are very, very worried about this, and there has to be basically an unholy alliance. This has to be stopped I am afraid. I, for a moment, do not doubt the intent and the sincerity of the Chief Minister but the feeling of a lot of the public is that this has emerged because of the mishandling of the attempt to remove the Minister for Planning and Environment. That is their feeling. What has happened, and this is inevitable - you all can see this in penal policy and justice policy - if things are not working right you just tighten the screw. That is a classic policy response, which of course makes the situation worse and never gets to the root of the real problem. That is what the public are saying. If the Constables had held their meetings under the Code of 1771 I am sure they would have had an unbelievable response in those terms. I am trying to rescue the Chief Minister from the hole into which he has unfortunately dug himself. He is a man of considerable integrity and good intent but he is being stuck in a situation where there are certain people in his Ministry, for example, who are intent, on, as Deputy Young said, concentrating power. There is one office; there is far too much power in one office.

[10:45]

The Minister for Treasury and Resources' office, he said yesterday he is now going to become an activist shareholder in Jersey Telecom, having tried to bounce back question after question. When people were trying to tell him: "Look, this may be a micro issue, but politically it is a big issue." In other words the state of the Gigabit programme, the state of the billing programme, because those bills, to take a little political lesson, those bills were going to every home and every elector was saying: "I am fed up with this, why is the system not working?" So there was an instant political reaction. But the Minister resisted that saying: "I ride on the surface, I only deal with strategic issues, I cannot deal with these." Alright, no way he should have to deal with every minor issue, but he should have the common sense. But now he has become, he said, an activist shareholder he realises something seriously wrong exists. I also think, and again I have immense respect for the officers of J.D.C. (Jersey Development Company), we are into a slow car crash there. There are real, real issues about the role of Government which will not be examined and they need a big philosophical debate at the Council of Minister's level. We tried to have one in the States, prompted by Senator Breckon, but the States would not listen, or some of the States would not listen, as to what was going on, and again it was wrapped up; you either have confidence in me or you do not. It was wrapped up into that big black and white decision, so I do ask the Chief Minister, I do not know if he realises what public sentiment is out there, but there are all sorts of groups who are unified against this. It will do enormous damage to him and to his Council if this goes forward, and I would ask him immediately to withdraw it. Thank you. [Approbation]

8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think that Deputy Le Hérissier has provided a good background, if you like, to the exo-politics, what is going on in our Island. That is very much the sentiment that I have felt, and it is not something which is along the traditional political lines, it is not about left or right, or even really about conservatism versus what one might call progressive politics. It is about the Jersey person's ability to appoint Members who they see as independent, and we know that the elections turn up some strange results because you get Deputies, Constables and even Senators, particularly in constituencies, whose politics maybe does not necessarily fit the traditional bill. That is why we get some seemingly green left-wing candidates being elected in very rural areas and perhaps some

more traditionalist conservatives being elected in very urban areas in St. Helier , and that is, in some ways, the beauty of the Jersey system. I think that is what the Jersey man and the Jersey woman expects of everybody who is appointed to this Assembly, to come in with the right attitude, to do their best and to contribute in a way. Sometimes an idea can come out of left-field and it completely changes the course of policy, or at least it should have the ability to do that, because it is not about who the idea comes from it is about what the idea is. I think we, hopefully, all agree with that. We have heard so much in the last few days and weeks about policy not personality, yet what I think this risks doing, and perhaps it is an unintended consequence, is that it will put more on personality because it depends who you are. If you happen to be an "in" person, if you happen to be in with the Chief Minister of the day, you are okay potentially, and it is not about meritocracy. So I have decided to speak relatively early, partly because there is reticence from the other side, and I hope that this will draw out some of the Chief Minister's proponent's arguments as to why we should be doing this. But I personally think this is very dangerous. As the person who chaired the subcommittee, it is important to say that Deputy Young, who has already spoken very well, gave us enormous support, the same with Deputy Baudains, Deputy Vallois as well, Deputy Le Fondré, and the Constable of St. Clements was a good weather vane as well, particularly for us, in some ways, to provide balance. We came out with some tentative proposals that were discussed in committee and if I go back to the principles of it, it was presented as a package and we thought it was important to recognise the ability for the Chief Minister to work effectively with his team, which is also our team, and for the issues such as inclusivity to also be addressed. Now, if I go through the 6 basic principles that we came up with and identified as areas that needed attention or were lacking, which are in the interim report but also in the final report. We found that there were blurred lines of accountability, a prevailing silo mentality, and on the next page, insufficient inclusivity, insufficient use of States Members' talents and expertise, ineffective lines of communication and a Civil Service that potentially wields too much power. I will come back to some of those because, although ostensibly the proposition P.33 before us and the principles might seek to address a couple of those, in particular 1 and 2, I would suggest that there are other ways to do it which do not have the downsides but it does nothing to address the apparent insufficient inclusivity and about States Members talents and expertise. So, if Members bear with me. First of all, the argument has been put forward that the Chief Minister needs more power because he is in a coalition. Now, I suspect that the Chief Minister, whoever that might be, needs to realise that he has an enormous amount of influence, he is the first among equals, if you like, he is the one or she might be the one in whom the Assembly have put their trust and have contested an election with other robust candidates in

order for the Assembly to lead the Assembly forward. That cannot be done in an absolute way. We have heard the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the best safeguard for power is shared power; it is the best democratic check, so when you have to take other soundings from people who are there, and not because they are there from your favour, because you have put them there and you can remove them, but because the Assembly has put them there. The democratic checks come from the Assembly. I would suggest it is more about the art of persuasion, that is what politics is about, it is about the interpersonal skills which we know the current Chief Minister has. But I would suggest, quite respectfully, that rather than seeking more power, the Minister should assume the power that he already has and use that more effectively; use the influence that he has as Chief Minister. I would like to see more of a leadership role on issues like reform, and I know the Chief Minister probably will be doing that, I imagine, and we will see that. When there are other voices in the Cabinet which maybe he has not had the control over putting there but others he has, he needs to say: "No, this is the way we are doing it" and enforce his authority. You do not need to have Standing Orders and the States of Jersey Law changed in order to maintain the authority that any respectable Chief Minister should have. So I think that is the first point. I was concerned when I heard about the carve-outs to say that we can agree to disagree on certain issues of policy. Of course there will always be matters of conscience. But was

there not an issue that I recall where it seems one rule for one, one for another, and that is under the current system. We have a Minister who is alleged to have done something that is incorrect, a little bit of public pressure internally in the States builds and then we had the fiasco earlier in the year which is long forgotten now. Yet we have another Minister who arguably has made several mistakes, and because of who he is and his influence that he exerts, we can agree to differ; we just have words of advice on that or send him some extra training. Under a system whereby we have collective responsibility and we say we can agree to disagree, you will simply have a Minister who is much more influential, who can be given more licence to agree to disagree on, and you will have other Ministers who are expected to toe the party line. That is what we have now to a certain extent and it will be made much worse under collective responsibility. The dangers of group-think are surely there as well because we know that by putting a composite Chief Minister's team together, which is at least endorsed by the States or can be modified, it allows new and fresh ideas to come in. That does not mean, I do not think, it has to be at the expense of not working together. I would say that if you cannot work together with Ministerial colleagues who have been appointed by this Assembly to do the best for the Island and to take us forward in an agreed direction, that you simply do not deserve to be a Minister or probably even a States Member. I do not believe that we need that Ministerial whip in order to do that. Of course, patronage is another word I have got written down here and the dangers of that which will be multiplied if we go for a system of differential pay, but that is a different argument for later. Now, if I said to Members: "We should have special seats in Jersey for minority groups or for disenfranchised groups; we do not have enough women in the States, therefore one of the seats in St. Saviour should be reserved for a female candidate." What would Members say to that? I think they would say, as the public do: "No, you cannot have that because we should elect the best person for the job." You cannot just simply say that somebody can have the job because of certain characteristics. Now, while the argument is not entirely transferable, what that highlights is the argument for meritocracy. People expect, albeit in a flawed system, that the best person for the job, the one with the correct skills at the right time, should get the job. But that will not happen under collective responsibility. This Assembly will give up its sovereignty and any decision, to the point - which a colleague mentioned

earlier - that if you have stood on a campaign for education reform you have got the public mandate for it but the other Members who have got in simply happen to choose a Chief Minister with whom you are not aligned or who does not share your same education vision, you will not even have a say in that. You will not even be able to question the proposed Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, let alone put yourself up and test the mood of the Assembly and say: "Well, I have just got a different vision, I am afraid." If it is not about personality but it is about policy, when does the policy discussion happen? It does not happen before the election because we do not know who we have got. It simply leaves so much to chance, and it is taking so much of the, I believe, good Jersey system that we have got, the power of this Assembly and the power of independent Members to represent their views and that of their constituencies. It is just eroding that and we are giving this up on a plate today if we pass P.33. We suggested having a referendum on who should chair this Assembly, an internal matter from my perspective, and we were willing to put that to referendum, yet this is potentially the most serious and dangerous change that some are hoping to make today and we are doing it as if it is just: "Oh, it is just business as usual, it is just a bit of housekeeping, let us pass that." The media, I think, hopefully are aware that this is the most serious change to the machinery of government that could happen and has happened recently; in many ways much more even than electoral reform which has had a lot of coverage. The efficiency argument; we have heard Deputy Baudains. I love his anecdotes about the motor trade and he has got a history of it. We are always told that Ministerial government is more efficient, the old committee system was not efficient, and that what we have got here is we need to make the car even more efficient because it is too slow, the driver cannot go where he wants to go, he has got all these people. I would suggest a possible parable, if you like, is to say that we have got a car, in fact we have got a bus. We have