States Meeting Transcript - 15th May 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 15th MAY 2014

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................5

1. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): sixth amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(6)) - Article 3 - resumption............................................5

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.............................................................5

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :....................................................................5
2. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................5
3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................6

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................7

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

- part 2 (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 3..................................................9

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................9
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................10
3. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................10
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................11

3. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 7) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment

- part 3 (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 3.................................................11

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................12

2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................13

4. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 7) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)Amd.) - Article 3 ..............14

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................14
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................15
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................17
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................17
5. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................18
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................19
7. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................20
8. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................20
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................21
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:............................................22
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................23
12. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................23

5. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment

- part 3 (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 3 - resumption..................................25

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................25

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................26
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................26
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................26
5. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................27
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................27
7. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................27
8. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................27
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................28
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................28

6. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption.......29

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................29
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................30
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................31
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................31
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................32
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................33
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................34
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................35
9. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................35
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................36

2. International Criminal Court Act 2001: extension to Jersey (P.34/2014)..............41

2.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations - rapporteur):............41

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................42
2. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................42
3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................42
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................42

3. Draft International Criminal Court (Jersey) Law 201- (P.35/2014) ...................43

1. Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................44
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................44
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................45
4. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................45

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................45
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................45
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................46 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................46

4. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption.......46

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................46

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 4..........................................................47

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................47 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................47
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................49
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................50
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................50

5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................51
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................51
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................52
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................54

3. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - as amended.......55

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................55
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................55 The Solicitor General:........................................................................56

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................57
5. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................57
6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................58

4. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................59
5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................60

6. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): third amendment (P.33/2014 Amd(3)) - Article 7..........................................................60

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................61
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................61
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................62
4. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................62
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................62

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................63
7. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................63

7. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.)........................................................................64

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................64
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................65
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................66
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................66
5. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................66
6. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................66
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66
8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................67
9. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................67
10. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................68
11. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................69
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................69
13. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................69
14. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................70
15. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................70

8. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption.......72

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................72
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................72
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................75
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................75

6. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................75
7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................76
8. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................77
9. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................77
10. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................79
11. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................79
12. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................79
13. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................80 The Solicitor General:........................................................................80
14. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................81

9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................83

10. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): third amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(3)) - Article 8..........................................................83

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................83
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................85
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................86

4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................87
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................89

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

[9:30]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

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

The Bailiff :

Very well, then we return to where the Assembly was yesterday evening. This is discussing the amendment 6, part 1 of the Connétable of St. Mary. Does any other Member wish to speak? Senator Le Gresley.

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

Sometimes in life we experience difficulties and it means that we have great difficulty going to sleep, and sometimes our dreams become a nightmare because some of the difficulties we are facing become part of our nightmare. I would suggest to some Members this morning that we have the nightmare now. The scenario that is being painted by this amendment is one of an exclusive Chief Minister who presents his slate unchallenged to this Assembly and gets on with the business of Government in the Executive. The Assembly - Sir, I hope I can use this word - is emasculated, deprived of strength and vigour, weakened, and that is exactly what this amendment will do to this Assembly. To suggest that the Assembly should have no say at all in who should be Ministers in the Government of this Island to me is absolutely ridiculous. When we aspire to become politicians, I am sure that we would like suggest to our electors and our friends that we wish to have a part in the running of Jersey. In some cases, we have life experience behind us of working in offices or running our businesses or whatever it may be, even coming out of university with very good qualifications can become a politician, but we do want to have a part, we do not want to be sitting on the sidelines, and this unfortunately is what the Constable of St. Mary would wish us all to be, just sitting on the sidelines watching the show go by. It cannot be possible that the only job in this Assembly available to the 49 States Members re-elected or elected in October is that of Chief Minister, because that is the only job available if you want to be in the Executive. You cannot say to your electorate: "I would like to be Minister for Social Security or Minister for Health and Social Services." You cannot say that because you have no control as an individual Member as to your future in this Assembly. You cannot even get a number of fellow candidates to support your candidature for any of these posts, because it will all be in the behest of the elected Chief Minister. If Members feel that that is what they want, fine, please vote for this amendment, but I think the Constable of St. Mary realises how weak her amendment is, because she makes reference to the fact that the fallout of the failed 3 attempts would to be revert to the previous procedure of election of Ministers, which of course is roughly what Deputy Le Fondré is proposing. While I do not like any of these things, I have to say that Deputy Le Fondré's amendment is a far better

compromise, if we have to have one, than the proposal put forward by the Constable.

1. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I shall be extremely quick, but unlike Senator Le Gresley, I find it extremely easy to get to sleep at the moment, especially during the days. [Laughter] It comes rather naturally. But I just wanted to say quickly that I cannot support this amendment because I do feel that without the Ministers getting the endorsement of the Assembly, whether it be  en bloc or individually, it will take something away from the credibility of the Government and I cannot support it.

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

I also stand to oppose this proposition. Obviously I was opposing the entire proposition yesterday, but this is exceptionally dangerous. Senator Farnham talks about it is easy to sleep during the day. I believe that States Members are sleepwalking into a disaster, and I mean that. We have seen many states throughout the world - and I know we can think of ourselves: "We are not like Nazi Germany as it was in 1933, when Hitler was brought as Chancellor" - but you have to look at the gradual erosion of powers of the Assembly and the checks and balances. We are taking a severe risk with the future of this Island with centralising power. As I stated yesterday, you may like Senator Gorst , he is the existing Chief Minister, but the next person, whoever it is, might have an authoritarian or a centralising streak or be someone who will be using collective responsibility to demand obedience of his Ministers. Where are the checks and balances? You are giving all the powers. You are not even seeing who the Ministers are and seeing whether they are capable or whether they are a bunch of toadies or what. What are the qualifications of the people who are going to be made a Minister? I just hope States Members will have a reality check and think what they are doing, because I really think if you pass this, and some of the other measures, you are selling this Island down the river and I cannot support it.

Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour :

Could I just have a little bit of clarification? I do not think Deputy Higgins meant it, but when he said "toadies" was he referring to Jersey people?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I clarify that? A toadie is a person who sort of creeps or goes for a job, not necessarily the best person for the job, and they can be any nationality and any country.

The Connétable of St. Saviour :

Sorry, that was not what I asked. I asked was he referring to Jersey people? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sorry, thinking of the crapaud, no, I was not.

The Bailiff :

I think we have taken that one as far as we can. Deputy Power.

3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I can also be brief this morning. It seems to me that yesterday 25 of my colleagues agreed to support the principles, and I have just listened to Senator Le Gresley's speech this morning and it would be useful if the Connétable of St. Mary referred to this in her summing up - I will not be supporting the amendment - and that is that this morning, Senator Le Gresley, Senator Le Marquand and Deputy Duhamel are in an invidious position had we got collective responsibility, because they have parted company with the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, it seems to me that if all of the Articles were passed this morning, the Chief Minister could theoretically be asking for the resignation of Senator Le Gresley, Senator Le Marquand and Deputy Duhamel or that they might have to consider their position. So I just say to colleagues that voted for this thing yesterday, you reap what you sow.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the Connétable 's amendment? No. Then I call upon the Connétable to reply.

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I am jolly glad no one else is going to speak because I think a few hares have been set running, especially by Senator Le Gresley's speech this morning, which quite astounded me. I think he has totally misunderstood and misrepresented the amendment. The amendment does not do anything that he said. It is simply to make sense of the substantive proposition. It does not take away anything that the substantive proposition does not do. It is simply a tidying-up, a bringing of logic to it. He referred to the fall-back position as being the same as it is now and said that was an acknowledgement that my amendment was weak. Categorically, that is not the fall-back position. The fall-back position under the substantive amendment is that the Chief Minister gets his wish immediately without any consultation. That is not what the ..

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Sorry, Sir, I think the Constable is misleading the House. Under the substantive proposition, this was a question yesterday, that if the amendment is thrown out we are back to where we are today. We were guided by the Chair. Yes, we were.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

I am sure that if all the amendments were thrown out, we might be in that position, but we are only debating my amendment at this stage.

The Bailiff :

That is correct.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

It is completely incorrect to say that the fall-back position is that we have this situation we have today.

[9:45]

The Bailiff :

The fall-back position at the moment if your amendment is not passed is that on the Chief Minister's proposal, then after 3 strikes, he will be able to get his slate agreed, but we still have to debate amendments by Deputy Le Fondré which would provide otherwise.

The Connétable of St. Mary :

Thank you for clarifying, Sir. That is exactly my understanding. I have to say that throughout what was said yesterday, I am amazed that some Members really do not seem to understand the points of what we are debating here. I have heard "sleepwalking into disaster" and "concentrating the power" all referred to in my amendment. It does no such thing. The concentration of the Government into the hands of the Executive was effected 9 years ago by the Assembly that brought in Ministerial government. That is done. Deputy Martin yesterday in her speech referred back to something I had said to her when I was newly elected as a Deputy , saying that I had understood that. I am sorry, but I had understood that and I knew what kind of Assembly I was coming into. I know what kind of Assembly we have. We have an Executive Government. That was not my doing and it was not the doing of most of this Assembly, but it is what we have and it is what was legally passed and it is what we work to. The whole point of the substantive proposition and hopefully the gist of the amendments is to make that Government more efficient and more accountable. Going back, if I might, to the essence of the amendment, I tried overnight to make sense of the points that had been raised, but really they were very diverse. To come back to reality, this is a very simple amendment. One or 2 speakers identified that yesterday. It is simply to bring logic to the otherwise potentially unsatisfactory process that would arise if the substantive

proposition went through with this Article not amended, because after the Chief Minister coming to the Assembly with a slate of Ministers, without any opportunity for an amendment to that, if the Assembly rejected those Ministers, he would come back twice more, and if in the circumstances they were all rejected, then the Chief Minister would simply bring the slate he wanted without challenge. I am saying quite simply this is a very circuitous process to arrive at a goal. Why not eliminate all of the intermediary steps and cut to the chase and say: "This is what the effect is. Let us just do it"? If you do not like that, the answer is you do not want this Article, but all I am doing is tidying-up an unsatisfactory administrative process. To say that this is sleepwalking into disaster, this amendment, is absolutely ridiculous. It is a point of logic. Maybe that is beyond the scope of this debate. Senator Le Gresley though did raise an interesting point when he said that he would have nothing to stand for, and a couple of Members said there was no point being in the Assembly, but the point is, as happens now, if you have a strength, if you have a desire to serve, you bring that to the attention of people. We elect the Chief Minister and that starts the process. You are no more likely or less likely to be able to bring your skills and expertise to the attention of any potential Chief Minister than you are now. Having people who are willing to stand and having people who believe they have something good to offer has never been a guarantee that that person would be endorsed by this Assembly. It never has. Nothing has changed. But the Chief Minister will have to be canny, because he will have to be bringing together people that he thinks that can work together and people that he thinks will be able to achieve the things that have been discussed in the speeches and questioning going up to his own election or her own election because that is what this Assembly will want to see. Now, I have toyed with other ideas about bringing a new kind of proposition, because people have said: "We are loath to go for the nuclear option." Most people treat censure as some sort of conduct. We need something about specific performance, specific adherence to the Strategic Plan. That is for another day, but this amendment is extremely simple. If you do not like allowing the Chief Minister to put forward the people that he can work with and the people that he or she thinks will be the best to form the Executive, then simply you have to throw this thing out, this entire Article, but if you believe that electing the Chief Minister as an Assembly - and not one of us can say who will be here in a few months' time, not one of us can say who the candidates will be - we have to put some acknowledgement to the fact that collectively as an Assembly, diverse people elected in diverse ways will choose that Chief Minister. If you do not believe that this Assembly will have the good sense to elect someone that they can have faith in, then you wonder why anybody would be here. But we cannot keep confining things the way we are attempting to do. If you do believe that we should move forward to a system that works incredibly well in other places, and not simply as Deputy Le Hérissier referred to in the party system, but in places where that party system does not exist .. Isle of Man: The Isle of Man I visited and I was extremely impressed. The President of Tynwald came here and I believe addressed the panels - I certainly met with her here - and reinforced all of my first-hand experience of how the Isle of Man works. There is no reason why it could not work here and work very efficiently, but if you believe that needs to be done, then this is the amendment to vote for, because this is the only amendment that takes us to a different position than the one we are at now. All I ask - it is a tall order - is that Members vote to what the amendment says and not to what they have considered that it might

mean. I move the amendment, Sir. The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel?

The Bailiff :

Very well, so the matter before the Assembly is the amendment by the Connétable of St. Mary. The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 10

Senator P.F. Routier Senator P.M. Bailhache Connétable of Trinity Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Ouen Deputy J.P.G. Baker (H) Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy of St. Martin

CONTRE: 32

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator A. Breckon

Senator S.C. Ferguson Senator B.I. Le Marquand Senator F.du H. Le Gresley Senator I.J. Gorst

Senator L.J. Farnham Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of Grouville Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy T.A. Vallois (S) Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)

ABSTAIN: 1 Deputy M. Tadier (B)

Deputy of St. John Deputy J.H. Young (B) Deputy of St. Mary Deputy R.G. Bryans (H) Deputy R.J. Rondel (H) Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)

2. Draft States of Jersey(Amendment No. 7) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment - part 2 (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 3

The Bailiff :

Very well, that means that the remaining amendments put forward by the Connétable fall away, because they were consequential, so when we come to them in the running order, they will not be moved. I will ask the Greffier to read that amendment, as it is quite short.

The Greffier of the States:

2. Page 42 to 43, Article 3. In paragraph (a), in the substituted Article 19(5B), for the words "3 successive proposals" substitute the words "the prescribed number of successive proposals."

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

When I say I am ambivalent on this, it should not be a significant matter that is going to take us hours to consider, so I will not be talking very long. When one was originally discussing this particular Article - the 3 strikes - some of the discussion revolved around whether 3 was the right number or not, and I thought: "I really do not want to get stuck into that kind of argument at this stage. It is something for later on" and I thought the most appropriate place was to put it into Standing Orders. It does not matter, I am ambivalent on this as to where it goes, but it is purely to avoid us getting dragged down into the mire of the detail of whether it should be 3, 2, 5 or whatever it is at this stage, and literally all it does is substitute the figure 3 with "prescribed number" basically. The idea then is that in Standing Orders, it sets the prescribed number. If people think 3 is fine and they would prefer the certainty at this stage in the legislation rather than Regulations, do not support it. If people would like to keep the flexibility going forward in terms of it tends to be easier to sort out a change in Standing Orders, then you would want to support this and put it into Standing Orders. That is what I am trying to do to, is to get the Members to focus on the principles and not on whether it should be 3, 2 or anything else. I will stop there. I hope that is reasonably clear.

The Bailiff :

Is that amendment seconded? [Seconded]

The Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak on that amendment? Deputy Southern .

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

I feel like I have woken up in a different planet and I am searching around desperately to see if I can find a pin so I can count the number of angels on them. Enough said, let us get on and either reject or accept what is proposed as the main proposition and not mess around with numbers like this.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well. Do you wish to reply, Deputy Le Fondré? Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I endorse it.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Young, did you wish to speak?

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

Yes. I can understand Deputy Southern . In fact, I find this whole choice on all of these Articles exactly the same. How can you make what is a dreadful proposal, in my view, better? These judgments are so marginal. In the previous discussion, the previous amendment, which is lost, there was logic, but I do not think it is about that. It is about whether or not we have a democratic system or not on what the role of this Assembly is for. I do not believe that Clothier ever intended that we would have an autocracy in the way we do things.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry, this is way off the point. This is a short matter, whether you want to have 3 successive proposals or put it off to Standing Orders.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Sorry, Sir, if I may explain why I am going to support the amendment. It is because I need to explain that dilemma in my mind as to why I think that the amendment should be approved. It is because I recognise that despite the passion, this amendment is, if you like, a damage limitation amendment. There is a risk that the substantive may go through - I shall vote against it - but I cannot rely on that, and so this is a damage limitation measure which I think important the Members should weigh that choice when they vote, and I am going to go with the Deputy .

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon Deputy Le Fondré to reply.

4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I just thank the 2 Members who have spoken and I will leave it to Members to make the decision. The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for then in relation to the second part of the seventh amendment of Deputy Le Fondré, which is to replace 3 successive proposals by a prescribed number of successive proposals. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

POUR: 24

Senator A. Breckon

Senator S.C. Ferguson Senator B.I. Le Marquand Senator F.du H. Le Gresley Senator L.J. Farnham Connétable of Trinity Connétable of St. Clement Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. John Connétable of St. Ouen Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy J.A. Martin (H) Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L) Deputy M. Tadier (B) Deputy T.A. Vallois (S) Deputy M.R. Higgins (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) Deputy J.H. Young (B) Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)

CONTRE: 16

Senator P.F. Routier Senator P.F.C. Ozouf Senator I.J. Gorst

Senator P.M. Bailhache Connétable of St. Brelade Connétable of Grouville Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy of St. Ouen Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy K.C. Lewis (S) Deputy E.J. Noel (L) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy of St. John Deputy of St. Martin Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)

ABSTAIN: 1

Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)

3. Draft States of Jersey(Amendment No. 7) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment - part 3 (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - Article 3

The Bailiff :

Very well, then we come next to part 3 of the seventh amendment, also lodged by Deputy Le Fondré. This is a long amendment related to Article 3. Are Members content to take it as read? Very well, then I invite Deputy Le Fondré to propose part 3 of his amendment.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, obviously there are 2 potentially substantive votes coming along. One, as we know, is this significant change or alternative to the 3 strikes and you are in. There is obviously an amendment to it which is a separate item. I am not accepting my own amendment, if that makes sense. It is something for the Assembly to make a decision on separately and I shall be talking just to this present amendment. In essence, where we are now at the moment is that the Chief Minister is proposing 3 strikes and you are in, as we are aware, and that basically means that, as we have said, if his team is rejected 3 times, he or she can go away and propose whoever they like, even if it is one of the teams that have previously been rejected by this Assembly.

[10:00]

What I am proposing is basically a compromise, that after the third rejection, we default back to the present system, in other words, a schedule is put up and it can be amended in the normal way in terms of what Members have gone through. So it is a compromise position because it is giving the Chief Minister the ability to try and present to the Assembly on 3 separate occasions a team, but it is the fall-back of saying that if that gets rejected after the third time the Assembly can then influence that position. Now, in reality, I would suggest it may well not be used often, because one would hope that by the third time the Chief Minister will be getting to the point of understanding the mood of the Assembly and finding out what is acceptable. I think what is clear, when the panel first looked at all this, we did eventually come to the position of supporting the Chief Minister having the flexibility to put together his or her team, but I would stress that the recommendation of the panel was 3 strikes and you are out, in other words, if the schedule of Ministers put forward by the Chief Minister was rejected on the third occasion, the Chief Minister fell. That view was because it probably meant for whatever reason he or she did not have the support of the Assembly. That has obviously changed in the subsequent working group under the Chief Minister. I think what is important is that that 3 strikes and you are out came from the work that had the foundation of the original Clothier in 2000 and I understand the Policy and Resources and P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) joint working groups at that point, in other words, the likes of I presume Senator Horsfall of the day and whoever - I assume it was him - felt that that was an appropriate way to go. Obviously the advice that has come through now when the Chief Minister changed the recommendation of the panel is that that is unworkable, for whatever reason, and the argument has been that takes into what we call the Belgian or Italian set up where, in theory, there is a risk it could take weeks to put a Ministerial team together. Therefore that is why at the moment if nothing else changes, the present Article states, as I said, the Chief Minister proposes his team and after a third rejection, if it happens, the Chief Minister can go away and do whatever he or she likes. Now, I do not think that can be right, because if the team has been rejected for the third time and then a team that has been rejected is then the default position, that does not sound right from the point of view of democracy and to the point of view of the influence of this Assembly, so I am proposing a compromise. Let us accept the Chief Minister should be given an opportunity to appoint his or her team and this amendment generally supports that proposition, but let us also recognise that under the Chief Minister proposals and under the original Machinery of Government proposals, there is a degree.. I am sorry, not the Chief Minister's proposals, but there is a degree of retention of authority by this Assembly, so here we are retaining a necessity to receive the approval of the Assembly for his or her team. If the Chief Minister is unable to generate that support after the third attempt, and it is only after that third attempt, what do we do? I think we should default back to the present position, namely that the Assembly can then nominate. Do not forget we are giving the Chief Minister 3 attempts to get it right. If he or she is unable to do that and we move away from the 3 strikes and you are out proposals, in my view, it is the better way to go. It is respectful of this Assembly, whereas the present proposals are, in my view, at present a pointless exercise, and in that regard I do agree with the Constable of St. Mary. I do conclude by noting that P.P.C. do support this amendment as a good, practical compromise and on that basis, I propose the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour :

I am going to speak early on, because I am absolutely supportive of this amendment, and the reason why I say that was because of being part of a Machinery of Government Review, this was a particular area we found difficult to try and get the right balance. I think Deputy Le Fondré has compromised a little bit too much, and I think we should have kept the 3 strikes and you are out because it is all about managing expectations and if you are going to be appointing a leader of a Government for an island, you expect them, in a political area at the moment that we have with independence, to be able to seek people that are able to do a particular job and carry out and work as a team, not just put up people who are their friends or buddies who will just nod their heads. I think that is a major concern of a lot of people, that that may be the case going forward, that you will get a Chief Minister that will put their name forward who just wants a group of people who are their friends, not necessarily capable of doing the job. That could be a risk, but what this amendment does, for me, the expectation, I expect the Chief Minister to be able to find out those capabilities, assess the people who have put their names forward and anybody else that is willing to do a Ministerial job and assess that on their capabilities, but also it is one of how they make decisions and risk assess those decisions and see their role in the light of the States Assembly, because the States Assembly are the ones that are appointing the Chief Minister to carry out the role and therefore he is answerable to the States Assembly. I expect somebody of a calibre that is able to make a decision before the second strike and I think 3 strikes is appropriate. If a Chief Minister is unable to find a slate up to those 3 strikes, then are they really capable of making a big, serious decision, leading the Government? So I fully support Deputy Le Fondré in this amendment. I think what the Chief Minister has brought in the main proposition is wholly unacceptable and he knows that, so I will be supporting Deputy Le Fondré.

Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :

Can I make a point of clarification, or you could perhaps help me? Both speakers have mentioned 3 strikes and you are out, but on the amendment before that, we have not determined how many strikes it will be.

The Bailiff :

That is a very astute point, Connétable , you have raised. I think that perhaps Members no doubt will continue to refer to it by way of shorthand on the basis that it is a useful phrase, but yes, you are absolutely right. In fact, it will be however many strikes are provided in Standing Orders and you are out or in.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is not 3 strikes and you are out, it is 3 strikes and the Chief Minister appoints. The Bailiff :

Under the Chief Minister's proposals. Under the proposals of Deputy Le Fondré, then after the 3 or whatever number it is, then it will be up to the States.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

But it is not 3 strikes and you are out, it is 3 strikes and then you have the Assembly voting or versus 3 strokes and you are in. "Out" is the wrong word.

Deputy J.H. Young:

It could also be one strike and out.

4. Draft States of Jersey(Amendment No. 7) Law 201- (P.33/2014): seventh amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)) - amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(7)Amd.) - Article 3

The Bailiff :

Yes, the Greffier has just pointed out to me, and I must apologise to Members, of course Deputy Le Fondré has an amendment to his own amendment which he wishes to have debated separately and therefore procedurally that must be taken next. I have Deputy Vallois as the seconder, but that was wrong. I apologise. In fact, we should revert to the correct procedure so that before we come to consider Deputy Le Fondré's amendment, part 3, we must consider first his amendment to his own amendment. I am just checking how long the amendment is as to whether it should be read. It is long, so are Members content to take it as read? Of course, if Members feel it should be read then.. I think it will become clear to the outside world hopefully during the debate. Very well, I invite Deputy Le Fondré to propose the amendment to the amendment.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, Sir, that was why I was looking slightly puzzled when Deputy Vallois started to speaking, which was hence the frantic email that I just sent. Okay, the reason I am asking the Assembly to consider this amendment to my original proposition, to keep the thing separate, it is about how far we want to go on a particular position, okay? You have got 2 choices here in terms of the round. At the moment, my original proposition is about at the end of the 3 strikes that the Assembly can then revert to the present position of being able to change or challenge the individuals being proposed to the Ministerial posts, okay? However, the whole principle that we are introducing under this system is we are giving the Chief Minister the flexibility to propose different Ministerial posts. We are not going to have necessarily the 11 positions of Minister that we presently have. It is perfectly possible that on the.. so the issue here is that what is the Assembly going to be rejecting? This is what I am looking at. If that first schedule is adopted by the Assembly, there is not a problem. One is trying to anticipate what is going to happen if the schedule is rejected. There are 2 variables in there, not one. The variables are the list of Ministerial positions and the individuals being appointed to those positions and it is a question of how much influence one wants to give to this Assembly. My original - and I will say - proposition is about giving the Assembly the influence over the individuals being proposed by the Chief Minister, but not the posts. However, this amendment gives total flexibility to the Assembly. In other words, if the Chief Minister, for example, in his or her new schedule proposes not to have a Minister for Treasury, but does want a Minister for Tourism and he decides to take the responsibility for Treasury into the Chief Minister's Department, that could be a reason that the Assembly rejects the slate, because they think there should be a Minister for Treasury. Therefore, it is how does the Assembly express that view? It is either by some form of informal discussion that is going on behind in the background, or having the ability after the third rejection to turn around and say: "No, we want a

Minister for Treasury. We want that specific position." We might call it something, I do not know. You then have to have a process which says that after the third strike, the Chief Minister comes back with the list of positions, so the list of Ministries which then the Assembly either endorses or changes according to whatever it wants to do and then once that has been bedded down, one then comes back to the individuals that are being proposed to that position, okay? Now, the point is it is quite a fundamental difference, and it is what comes out of how do you give this Assembly now the choice as to whether we leave the flexibility of choice on the positions to the Chief Minister or we are saying: "We have rejected the thing 3 times and we want the ability to look at what is being proposed in the round"? So this amendment, as I said, is about giving the Assembly, after the third

rejection, the ability to change the list of Ministries. I am phrasing it this way round: I will support my own amendment, but it is whether Members think that is important or whether they want to leave the positions with the Chief Minister. There are very strong arguments for that, because that is one of the reasons you are supporting the Chief Minister - you put him in place - is that that gives him the ability, he says: "This is the structure I want." If Members think: "No, we want to keep that final authority, as it were, with the Assembly" then you support this amendment and you support it when we revert back to the original one. If Members think: "No, we are happy for the Chief Minister to retain control, if you like, over the positions" and do not forget, this is not about next time, it is about 3 times down the line. You could end up with somebody, for the sake of argument, I do not know .. well, you could combine Social Security, Treasury and perhaps hive some bits off to Social Services, I do not know.

[10:15]

You do not know what that structure is going to look like, and do you want the Assembly to have the ability to influence that, but I think no way; or we are turning around and saying: "No, we want the Chief Minister to have control over the structure, but we want to have a final say, if we have rejected everything, over the individuals"? So the point is without debating - I will reiterate it again - the merits of the original.. I will say proposition, obviously it is an amendment to Article 3, what Members have to consider now is whether, if my main amendment were to be approved, should it be with the ability to amend the schedule of Ministerial posts by the Assembly or without that ability? Do not forget that is after the 3 attempts by the Chief Minister to have his or her team approved by this Assembly. I thought it was important to split the 2, because you do not want an argument going on saying: "Oh well, I will be supporting this if I could change the Ministerial posts." Hopefully this is the summary point: if Members consider my main amendment would be better with this proposal included, so that after the schedule has been rejected 3 times, the Assembly should be able to amend both the Ministerial posts, which would be the first stage, and the individuals being proposed for those posts, which you then come back to, they should vote for this amendment. If Members think that my main amendment is better as it presently stands - it does not matter whether you are going to support or not, you have got to consider as amended or not - i.e. that after the third attempt, the Assembly should only be able to challenge the individuals nominated and not the posts being proposed, then they should vote against this amendment. Hopefully that is understood and hopefully people understand why I have split it this way.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment to the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment? Deputy Tadier .

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

If Deputy Young is seconding it, perhaps he can explain it to us. The issue I have got is that we need to know - and it is not clear in my mind and I chaired the Machinery of Government Sub- Committee, and that does not mean anything necessarily - is that obviously we all understand the current system, how it works. It was my understanding that under the Chief Minister's proposals that the portfolios would be put forward much as they are now, but with his nominations and, if

there were to be any new Ministries, that would be put forward at the time. In an ideal world, what I would like to happen and I think what is entirely reasonable, and most of us would subscribe to, is that unless there were any changes, the current portfolios would exist and then the slate would be proposed, but if there were to be changes to those Ministries, let us say a silly example where the Chief Minister wanted to have a Minister for Treasury and 6 Ministers for Health, all of different varieties, that would first of all need to come to the Assembly so that we could approve that that is the right decision to make. Once that decision has been made, then we would go through whatever process has been decided. If that is not the case, then I think we are in deep trouble and so I need somebody to explain to me, perhaps either yourself, Sir, or somebody else, because it is simply giving us the choice after 3 strikes, which is a remote possibility that that is ever going to come to the Assembly anyway to say: "This is the point at which you can decide whether you are happy with the new portfolios"; it is not the right place. We were always on the understanding that any reshuffling of portfolios had to come back to the Assembly and it is also logical that we should have whatever the system is decided that the individuals for that post should be chosen for that post, not simply a scenario where the Chief Minister can say: "I want 7 of my best men and maybe a woman for tokenism and we can go forward and I will just decide later on how we do that" because I do not think that is acceptable at all if that is what is being proposed. I do not see how this amendment necessarily deals with the fundamental problems there, so I would like clarification from somebody as to what would be proposed, but simply - and I will say this probably in the next part - is that of course this is partly why I was asking for a reference back yesterday, and I will not be moving that at the moment, it may not be in order, but these fine details are very important when you have got these amendments to amendments coming forward, the devil really is in the detail and I am worried that we do not really know what the consequences are of what we voted for yesterday. Yesterday the principle was to say: "Yes, absolutely, give the Chief Minister full power" and then there are logical consequences to that which we are trying to deal with now and which the Assembly is finding that they do not like. That is why I suggest whatever, whether we accept this and we accept the future one, is to basically kick out this whole Article so that we can revert with the status quo, which is the best of all worlds and it does not mean that we cannot have collective responsibility, if that is ultimately decided on in the Third Reading, but it gives the Chief Minister and the Assembly the ability to know who the Ministers are, appoint on their merits and then also for the Chief Minister to have the stick to dismiss.

The Bailiff :

Perhaps I can try and assist, because it is important Members are aware exactly of what the proposals mean. Under the Chief Minister's proposal, he will decide the Ministerial offices, in other words, the Minister for Children or a Minister for this or a Minister for that. He will come forward with a list of offices and the Members that he is nominating to fill those offices. After 3, or however many Standing Orders eventually provide, rejections, then he determines both the offices and the Members who fill them, so in other words, he has the right to decide that he is introducing a Minister for Children or whatever it may be. Just so we are clear, that is not it seems, Deputy Tadier , your understanding, but that is the position that the Chief Minister's proposals achieve. Deputy Le Fondré, under his amendment, says that after the 3 or whatever number it is rejections, then States Members will be able to nominate alternative Members, but not alternative Ministerial posts. Under his amendment to his own amendment, he introduces the ability also for Members to nominate posts, so that is clear.

Deputy M. Tadier :

May I just conclude very briefly on that basis, because that advice is helpful, and I will not keep Members any longer, but ..

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Could I just ask you to clarify further that that is in the first instance? Of course there is a different procedure during the term of the office under Article 11.

The Bailiff :

Yes, of course. This is only to do with the initial selection.

Deputy M. Tadier :

So if it is the case that the Chief Minister will create and realign portfolios, the Assembly will not have a say in that, but then will appoint Ministers to that position, the question is why are we not getting a say? Why are we only getting a say in the third instance and giving 3 attempts when there are 2 variables in it, which I think is what Deputy Le Fondré is trying to ascertain, because it could be that the individual in the post is not the correct one for the Assembly and it could be that the post is not the correct one for the Assembly either. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the Assembly does not get to endorse the change of portfolios in the first place. For example, if the Chief Minister just elected, as the Chief Minister, says: "We need a Minister for Children" that could be controversial. The Assembly would not really have any formal way of saying we do not want one, or we want another Minister, which is perhaps slightly different with slightly different powers. We have to wait until the third time, which probably will not happen anyway, in order to effect that, so what it says to me is that we need to kick out all these Articles, they need to be worked out properly so that all the safeguards that are put in place, even if we go with collective responsibility, that these steps need to be thought through properly and that simply has not been done under the current arrangements.

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Rather oddly, I understand everything. It was quite a surprise that all the parts fell into place and while I appreciate what Deputy Le Fondré is trying to do, I think we stand a danger of really ending up by making a bit of sow's ear out of a silk purse, if you could call what we end up with a silk purse or not, because this has the propensity to complicate things enormously and I will speak, if I may, to the amendment to the amendment and the amendment, just to save a bit of time in the future, because they are very similar. I might just overlap. You probably will not even notice, Sir, with all due respect. [Laughter]

The Bailiff :

I might not have if you had not alerted me. Senator L.J. Farnham :

I know, Sir. I think Deputy Vallois made a very valid point that if the Chief Minister Designate is in tune with the Assembly in any way, shape or form, we are unlikely to go beyond the first or second schedule, I would hope, because I think it would be folly for a Chief Minister Designate to attempt to foist upon the Assembly a schedule of Ministers and Ministerial departments that is going to be too controversial. The aspect to this is that the Chief Minister Designate I believe has to shape the Government. You see, as soon as we start accepting these types of amendments, then it opens a way for a strategy to appear, and let us refer to the number of strikes. I have referred to my superior at the Home Affairs Department and we have decided that we are going to refer to the number of strikes with the mathematical symbol of x number of strikes, then unlikely, but it could become a strategy of the Assembly or certain factions of the Assembly just to simply throw out the x number of attempts for the Chief Minister Designate to have a schedule because they know, after throwing them out, the Assembly can completely shape the Government how they wish after appointing a Chief Minister Designate to shape the Assembly and appoint Ministers. I think that is a danger. Well-meaning as these amendments are, I think that is a danger and for those reasons, I am not able to support the amendment to the amendment or the other amendment.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Right, having accepted that I am living in a parallel universe, we need to address what is at stake here nonetheless, and this particular proposition reminds me of some of the joys of working with Deputy Le Fondré. I tend to be very much a goals man, where are we going and see if we can get there. Deputy Le Fondré is a detail man. He can see issues from more points of view than I thought existed. [Laughter] On many occasions, that is a wonderful skill which you need to incorporate and say: "Oh, yes, but what if, what about .. yes, let us look at that before we move on and assume we are on the right track." In this case, I think it is not that useful. I think we are going a stage too far. Now we are into positions as well as the people, so we could end up arguing over playing 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 with the striker  behind Rooney in the hole or whether we go for a straightforward 4-3-3 and argue with the manager as to what the format is as well as who we are going to pick. We should have Terry back anyway. That is the sort of detail we are in danger of getting into and I am not sure that we want to. Let us look at what we are doing. I have used this analogy before. I think we are in danger of what we are trying to do is crochet our own hang glider and we are just picking at some of the stitches now to see if it is pretty or not. The fact is it ain't going to fly. The reality of where we are is that whether it is 3 strikes or 17 strikes does not really matter. What are we doing here? At the moment, we are considering how, in minute detail, we can give more power, choice and authority to the Chief Minister and give us some of that choice and authority and powers as an Assembly. That is the issue. Now, yesterday, by a very narrow vote, we voted that it was worth debating that issue and the amendments that go with it, but I come back to the point that I think Deputy Tadier made earlier.

[10:30]

The vote in principle said: "Let us debate it." That does not deny us the possibility to reject all of these amendments, and I would say these compromise amendments, fiddling around to say: "Oh, it is all right to do this," no, do not be tempted by that compromise, that perspective, which I do not think is worthwhile. Fundamentally, it is giving some of our authority and our powers over to the Chief Minister without additional accountability. That was the key word. We used it lots in the last 2 days, accountability, that is what this is about and we are in danger of giving up that accountability, whether we do it with this amendment or this pettifogging amendment or a pretty hang glider or a not so pretty hang glider. I would say do not be tempted by any of these amendments that all come down the same thing: the Chief Minister wants some more power and control. Are we going to give it to him? I would say reject these amendments and keep rejecting the amendments, so you get to the main one and reject that. Let us have the status quo. We have a working relationship at the minute with the Chief Minister. It has worked in the past. It does work. It is not absolutely clear sailing for any Chief Minister. Why would it be? But it is not up to us to solve a problem that the Chief Minister envisages by giving him some more of our authority. That is not the way forward, so reject these amendments individually and reject the main amendment of the Chief Minister and say: "No, we are perfectly satisfied with it as it is." That is possible. We did not, in voting whatever it was, 23:20 yesterday to debate this issue accept anything. We said: "We have heard about the principles. We need to debate these principles." Keep our eye on those principles and reject the Minister's request for more power and more authority.

5. Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you for explaining it so very, very clearly. Deputy Tadier asked me to explain why I was seconding it. Perfect. I think Members are in danger of thinking: "Well, this is a remote possibility, the circumstances are a remote possibility that Deputy Le Fondré is addressing here" that down the end of the line, after all these proposals coming forward which fail that his amendment would now be invoked, but we have decided there will be flexibility under Standing Orders to set the number of times. Yes, it might be 3 times, it might be 10 times, it might be one and I think Members should bear that in mind, so you cannot, I believe, address this amendment by considering it only a remote possibility. If it were a remote possibility, I accept crocheting the hand glider, et cetera, all those sort of analogies are right, but nonetheless, I think having made that decision yesterday by such a narrow majority, I think some Members probably voted because they thought it was democratic that we should go on to discuss all of the amendments and the details, despite being fundamentally opposed to the principles. I hope that is the case and that those Members will still .. yes, we have this decision to make. I happen to believe that the one element that I really like in the Chief Minister's proposals, the substantive ones, is the flexibility and the structure of the Ministerial government and I do believe it essential that .. I am trying to avoid speaking on the main issue, but I can just illustrate, for example, I personally think the Island needs a Minister for Energy, because I believe those issues will require restructuring. Now, yes, I am absolutely prepared to accept that when a Chief Minister is elected and we have their policy base, then I think the Chief Minister, it is obviously the job to produce a structure of government, of Ministries and a team of people to fulfil it. But I do think the Le Fondré amendment does have to allow for if that process goes wrong, if all the prior consultations and sensible discussions that took place fail, then I think there has to be the failsafe that the Assembly can, at that point, address both the Ministerial structure and the individuals that go in them. I think that is essential, because if we were then to have a situation where the Chief Minister's choice, as it were, were not approved, but simply adopted against the Assembly's wishes, that would be a really serious mistake. I think this is one of the most important aspects. Well, there are 2, obviously. One is the people themselves but the other is the structure of government. It is not just a theory piece of process procedure. Whole issues of public sector reform and delivering what the Island needs come from both the structure that we form, the structure of Ministries in government and the people in them, so I do think we need to have this tool that Deputy Le Fondré has offered us. So that is why I second it and that is why I support it.

6. Deputy J.A. Martin:

As for living in parallel universes, I think Deputy Southern is underestimating where Deputy Le Fondré can see behind the fog and the mess we could be in, because we are already in that mess. As for not reading out what we need to tell the people out there we are doing, 2 reports on the Channel Television this morning told us that we have already given the slate to the Chief Minister. It was reported we have already decided to give the slate. It definitely was not collective responsibility, so ahead of themselves again. Yesterday I was getting very depressed and down about: "Oh well, we are where we are" and Deputy Southern very optimistically thinks lots of people, because of the plea of Senator Ozouf , thought: "We will vote for the principles because we are going to throw the whole lot out." I am being a bit more pessimistic but then thinking it is all going to go through. You might tweak it here, tweak it there, try and make it a bit better but the power, the collective responsibility will lie with the Chief Minister. Then I thought to myself: "How will that be with you, if you are here next time?" Next time we will probably have either one of the nice Senators sitting on that bench. Then I thought: "No, be a bit more into the future, Deputy . Think of the people who are coming after you." We have an excellent young Deputy who sits next to me, behind me, alongside me, over there, and one of the parties maybe not as young but in political years they are. This power will one day hopefully transfer to them because this Deputy next to me will make a fantastic Senator in a few years' time. He will go for Chief Minister and he will have his team. By then it might be called a party, it might be collective, but he will have the people he wants in his office. He, by then, will not want this tweak. He, by then, will want to have the people that he can work with. So, is it such a bad day? I am looking down the line. We will all be gone. Even the young Senator Ozouf by then will be in his 50s. Chief Minister Designate Elect Mézec may have him as a Minister. He may, if he can work with him. The Deputy of St. Martin laughs but this will happen. So what we have designed is what you are all voting for yesterday and today is the nice Senator Gorst , the Chief Minister, the nice safe hands Senator Bailhache as Chief Minister. We have already heard that Senator Ozouf , if he stands as Senator again, does not want to be Chief Minister next time. So this is what we have voted for. I am going to go with Deputy Southern and throw the whole lot out because politically it will affect me next time. I want to be more inclusive. I like the system where we know who is going to be in what Ministerial post. The amendment does this on, as you say, whatever we set under now Standing Orders. To me it should only be one. This will get people to talk to each other and find out what you want and you have time to present your slate and where they are going to be, but this does give us, if they do .. do not forget, until amended or persuaded, this Chief Minister, and obviously discussions with the Council, only wanted 3 Ministers. You can divide it and say whatever. Once the power is there and they just have to persuade a few other Back-Benchers and the 12 Constables to vote with them, the power can erode and erode and erode. As I say, I am quite enlightened; I am not depressed. I went home and had my cup of tea. I have got to have a tooth out later so I might not be here for a vote or you might be lucky that I might not be able to speak after that, so I am getting a lot in now. [Laughter] As I say, I wish the younger Members in our Assembly in the next 4 to 8 even 12 years as it grows and the younger people get enlightened out there that this might be a sad day for me, you think it is a sad day but it is always who is in and who is out and you can never .. I had this discussion with Deputy Southern . He says in the parallel universe. To many people in here today, that might sound like a parallel universe. Politically I will definitely be gone but I hope to still be around to be invited to the Chief Minister Designate Mézec . [Approbation]

7. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

I was hoping that it was not my turn because I barely know where to start. It seems to me that every once in a while this Assembly gets on the verge of making a monumental decision and, if it does manage to succeed in doing that, it then spends the next 2 or 3 days doing everything it can to trip itself up, complicate matters and make sure that that monumental decision cannot work. I would remind the Assembly they are getting confused about a Chief Minister that potentially turns up in this Assembly with a slate and a list of Ministries that we have never heard of before and the Chief Minister confusing us. I would remind the Assembly that before anybody can be Chief Minister they have to get themselves elected. They then have to canvass the individuals that have been elected alongside them to see whether there might be enough support for them to run for the position. If they feel they have or they may have enough support to run as Chief Minister, they will then offer themselves for the post, produce a manifesto and, if we change the rules as I expect we will, subject themselves to an hour's worth of grilling in this Assembly on what they decide or what they propose to do with the strategy for government over the coming years of the session. It seems incredible – inconceivable - to me that a Chief Minister thus elected would not have been questioned at length by individuals before he offered himself for the post or by this Assembly when he put forward his manifesto to be elected, that he would not have told us that he wanted to abolish Health, Housing and form Ministries for dolphin watching or satellites. I find it inconceivable. This is detail. I would just like to get on and enact this. I cannot conceive that a Chief Minister would be elected by this Assembly and find himself producing new Ministries out of a hat that nobody had ever heard of.

8. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

After that very sensible speech from the Deputy of St. Martin, I can be very brief. Sometimes Deputy Le Fondré has very good ideas and very sensible ideas, but sometimes he gets carried away with the complexity of the arrangements that he thinks might deal with a situation which might conceivably arise, and I think that is what he has done here. This is just too complicated. Some of us wanted a simple system where the Chief Minister was given more authority than he has at the moment. He could provide a slate, he could provide his nominees, and some of us hoped that he would get his way and he could then be held to account. As the Deputy of St. Martin says, we are gradually chipping away at what was designed to be a system that would work better. What this amendment means is that if we get to the stage where the strikes have taken place and the Assembly has open house for causing mayhem, any number of Members could propose that a particular Ministry be created.

[10:45]

Deputy Young has said he would quite like a Ministry of Energy. Others would say: "Let us have a Ministry for Children", others a Ministry of Justice, Ministry for the Exploration of Outer Space and so on. It could take days to form a government. It  might even take weeks to form a government, depending on the number of propositions that were made. This is not sensible and I hope Members will reject the amendment.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I was interested to hear Deputy Martin speak of a future Chief Minister Mézec and I use that in the context of this debate.   As Deputy  Martin said, I  was the  youngest serving  Member of this Assembly I think for 9 years before the arrival of the young Deputy Maçon. I think as a young Member I was regarded as a bit of firebrand. Maybe I am a bit of a troublemaker today. But there are issues and of course, with a bit of age and a few grey hairs, one does evolve in one's views. As of today, if I took Deputy Mézec , I would agree with him on social policy issues but I do not think that we could be reconciled on our economic policies. I think we would be irreconcilable and that is an important issue to come back to as to why Deputy Le Fondré's detail in the weeds, if I may politely say, of micromanagement is simply not going to work. This Assembly is not a company. That is very clear. We are a parliament, but parliaments and charities and the businesses and the way we conduct  business or decisions have different styles. There are a number of guiding principles that I hold to in which amendments I am going to support and which I am not. I believe that Ministers and the Chief Minister should be concentrated and be concentrating on the things that really matter to the people's lives that we are serving. Parliaments should concentrate and there is exasperation about us talking about ourselves, and I will try and be brief. We need to find a way to be able to concentrate on the important issues that really matter, and to do that I believe that there are some guiding principles. The Deputy of St. Martin said that there needs to be a team that works. I think that a camel is regarded as something where a team of people originally started to design a horse. Nothing against camels, they are very nice animals, but the point is that you have ended up with something that simply does not work. If something does not work, it is difficult to hold it to account. I voted against the Connétable of St. Mary 's amendment, although I know that she spoke extremely well, because I wanted to give some subtlety, some choice for this Assembly to express a view about a team. Having been in 3 Councils of Ministers and having been on committees before with a number of Members of this Assembly, I absolutely know that teams that cannot be put together by a leader and that are cobbled together and forced to work together ultimately do not work. They simply do not work and I would challenge Deputy Mézec , who has ideas of forming a government, let us imagine, that I was to be forced upon Deputy Mézec in terms of a Council of Ministers. I am sure that Deputy Mézec 's views, as my own economic views have, will change over the years. It is irreconcilable; it is not going to work; it cannot work; it will not work. Deputy Le Fondré is in the weeds of micromanagement. He is trying to say that the Chief Minister, after having 3 rejections, or however many it is, in terms of the slate of candidates, now wants to give this Assembly the micromanagement ability, as Senator Bailhache explained, for making decisions of Ministerial offices and Ministers for Outer Space or more seriously perhaps .. I noticed with interest that Deputy Le Fondré was very interested in the Treasury job not going. I was interested in that, very interested that he takes that one. He is exasperated by it, but I note with

interest. Of course, I cannot conceive a situation where there would not be a Minister for Treasury. It would be unconscionable not to do so. It is not precisely the point, if I may say. What you need is effectively a Chief Minister that is elected with the confidence of this Assembly, that has a couple of times to bring a slate but then says: "Enough is enough." If the Chief Minister then is given the ability to say: "Enough is enough and not out but in" and chooses to make that "in" decision, not an indecision as we are going to be making here but a decision to make that group of people, then this Assembly will in time, probably quite quickly, probably by January, say: "Oh my goodness me, this individual has put forward a slate of Ministries which are completely wrong. We are not happy with it. We are not happy with the individual Ministers, we are not happy with the individual people" and he is going to lose the confidence of this Assembly and he is going to be out. I do not favour always nuclear options but a nuclear option of saying: "Okay, you can have your slate but on your own head be it because this is clearly not the view of the Assembly and you are going to be out on a vote of no confidence because it simply is not the will of this Assembly", that is the ability of this Assembly. The Chief Minister is not some sort of overlord, he is not the sort of individual that has been given dictatorial powers, because he is accountable to this Assembly and can be thrown out. I do not recognise this view of the world that the well- performing, good Chief Minister that we have, or the alternative of Senator Bailhache , is going to be in somehow this grace and favour situation where he is going to be putting his friends in different positions. Just to avoid the fact that we must not have him putting his friends in these positions, we must give the Assembly the micro ability to set up decisions of individuals. It is a crazy world. This is not a world that I can recognise and I do not think that it is reasonable that we get into the detail, to the micro 3 strikes, if it is 3, of Ministerial offices and individuals - I know we are talking about the offices here - and then the Chief Minister has his way or her way. I hope there may be a "her" one day; it would be great. That is the way to do it, but to go into this interminable situation .. because the final word that I would say is that you will end up with a certain outcome if that happens. You will end up with a Chief Minister that has a team of people that have been compromised and worked on with an uncertain outcome. One of the dangers of going through the individual offices is that you bank a Minister in a particular position and you do not know where a later position is, and you end up in a team that does not work because compromises have been made. That is why I want the whole slate approved or rejected, not bitten at, not amended, not compromised so that you end up with Ministers lower down in the pecking order of decisions of the States and replaced because of last minute compromises, you end up with a group of people in a group of responsibilities that simply will not work together. That is not in the interests of the Chief Minister's ability to do it, it is not fair for the team that is charged with doing it, because they have got somebody among them who does not work. I have been on Councils of Ministers with individuals that just simply will not work and you cannot have it, so I say no to this ability of the Assembly to be given this chance of micromanaging in the weeds of Ministerial office. I hear Deputy Le Hérissier laughing. There is no joke about this. Maybe he is laughing in agreement. It is in the weeds and if we are at that stage then we have not got a Chief Minister that should form a Government. He should go and we should start again, but what we should not do is go into the weeds of micromanaging, ending up with a team that cannot, will not work and not serve the interests of this Assembly or the people of Jersey. I know Deputy Le Fondré reasonably well. I