States Meeting Transcript - 20th May 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 20th MAY 2014

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

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

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................3

1. Senator A. Breckon: .....................................................................4
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................5
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ................................................6
4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................7
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :...................................................................8
6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.................................................................9
7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................10
8. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................10
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................10
10. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................12
11. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ..................................................12

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption.......17

1.2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................17

3. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): eighth amendment (P./33/2014 Amd.(8)) ....................................................................17

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.............................................................18 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................18

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................19
2. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................24
3. Deputy J.M. Le Bailly of St. Mary:.....................................................24
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................25
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................25
6. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................27
7. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................29
8. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................31
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:.......................................................34
10. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................36

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

11. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................38
12. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................42

13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................42
14. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................45
15. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................47
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................48
17. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade : ..............................................49
18. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier : ................................................50
19. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................52
20. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................53
21. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................54
22. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................54 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................60 The Attorney General:........................................................................61

4. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption.......62

1.4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................62

5. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014): fifth amendment (P.33/2014 Amd.(5)) .....................................................................63

1. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour (President, Chairmen's Committee): ...............63
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................63
3. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................64
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................64
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................64

6. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 8) Law 201- (P.33/2014) - resumption - as amended..................................................................................65

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................65
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................65
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................66
4. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................66
5. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................67

7. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................68
8. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................68
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................68

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................69
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................69
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................70
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................71
5. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................71
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................73
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................75
8. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................76 The Attorney General:........................................................................78
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................79

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................83

[9:31]

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

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

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate on Projet 33 and we were debating the amendment lodged by Deputy Young. Does any other Member wish to speak? Yes, Deputy Martin.

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

I am glad we did adjourn because I think this amendment does have a lot of merit. I, along with the other Members of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), met by video conference with Cornwall and they explained to us how exactly they had gotten here. It was because of a lot of what I hear around the States Assembly and in this Chamber, that people are disillusioned that they are not involved in making policy. They are not given enough information and this amendment brings people into helping, a watchful eye on the Minister, helpful to the Minister. We have already agreed that we are going to keep the amount of people in Government, if it all goes through at the end, to the Troy rule, whenever that gets put back in, but we know in theory that is what we have agreed. Unlike Deputy Baudains, I do not long for the days of the committee system, but I did find them all inclusive. I must not mention that this is anything like a committee system because it is not, but you have more than one head or 2 heads looking at multi-million-pound budgets, the policy that underpins that budget, and you then are holding the officers to account. Now, I said the other day somebody said to me: "I am not fussed either way whether this goes through." I have been on both sides. I have been in Scrutiny and I am now an Assistant Minister. I do not believe that you do get the information as timely as you do when you are an Assistant Minister or when you were sitting in the room with the officers on a weekly basis, fortnightly basis, on a committee and asking them to explain why they have come up with 3 recommendations and probably 2 sides of A4. You would say: "Where are recommendations 4 and 5?" and you want the evidence. You have the time to do that. They might not like it, but often recommendation 1, 2 or 3 were not acceptable and we needed to know where the other options were. Then right at the decision time when the Minister is making a policy these panels would be there to help, and that is how they explained it in Cornwall. It has gone too far the other way. Everybody except I think it was 10 people - yes, 10 people - felt like they were doing something. The others - there are 113, I think, in their council - felt like they were completely sidelined. I think this Chamber is in danger of getting more and more like that. I would support this. We nearly got there a few years ago with Senator Breckon's .. I think they were called shadow boards. We nearly got there and I just think this is a very sensible amendment. I really think people should consider, as I say, where we are. We have

now a small Government. People say to me: "It would compromise my politics." Well, would it? Because you can steer your policy right at the beginning or have an input. If your policy is wrong and it does not add up, and add up financially as well, you will be told in no uncertain terms why. There are 2 ways of coming at something, and Deputy Southern might get there but he has the budget, and somebody else might get there the other way. Now, is it more of this and a bit less of that and then we will give it to these? All the expertise on what people come into this Chamber for is to be involved in making decisions that will affect people's lives out there. I think this amendment goes a long, long way to getting more inclusivity. For people who say: "We want inclusivity" it has to be supported. What is the worry? What is the worry that people are going to sit with the Minister and make decisions and discuss the decisions? Not when you are in Scrutiny, you are calling in this and: "Why did you make that decision then?" It has already marched along.

[9:45]

It has been announced in the media: "We are going to have this there. We are going to have new sewerage. We are going to have all this" and it has already been made. If this system carries on, the majority of us in here will not be in the decision right at the beginning. Now, if you want that, as I said last week, do you want to be part of government and policy making or do you just want to come in here and look at the lot? That is the way I look at it. I really think this amendment is worth a good debate and to be supported.

1. Senator A. Breckon:

Just a couple of points. Something that Deputy Martin mentioned there was why this had failed previously, and what happened was Scrutiny members had seen it as a weakening of the scrutiny process and then Assistant Ministers and some Ministers had seen it as a weakening of their authority, if you like. That allegiance led to us going round in a big circle and finishing up where we were. Where we are is that lots of questions get asked and answers are sought. Perhaps if there was this bit more inclusivity then that would do away with that. I do not think that the brain power has all been suddenly delegated to Ministers or Assistant Ministers. I think it is good if things can be questioned. I noticed in some of the papers that Deputy Young had circulated we even had members of the public asking questions of the local authority. Heaven forbid, could we see the line-up there where it would happen? Because usually when these things happen they are stage- managed. We are looking for where there might be some opposition here and if people are inclusive then the policy is theirs. It does not belong to anyone in particular. It is about what is best in the public interest. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Young and the work that he has done, that is generally why these things are doomed to failure because Scrutiny can still do things and do do, but with this there is an involvement. That is something that was said pre-Ministerial government, that some of the scrutiny will be policy in development. Of course, that is all embargoed now. Do not go near there, we cannot discuss this. It is policy in development. Of course, if you are going to do that, then you are getting ideas from somewhere and my train of thought is the more the merrier. Sometimes it can be inconvenient if other people have different views and opinions, but that is good and healthy and should be embraced. I think that is what Deputy Young is trying to do with this. I would ask if Members would give this careful consideration and not just see it as a bit of a nuisance and say: "We cannot really get on and do what we want to do" because it is not about what we want to do, it is what is in the public interest. There might be views and opinions that are in vogue at the moment that might not be in 3 years' time, so generally we have gone down the middle road and that is good and healthy, but we have had people contributing from all over the place, including the community. Just to finish on, it is not necessarily restricted to us, to politicians. We have been fortunate in many areas, and school governors is a good example where you have people from the community who give their time freely and willingly and make a valuable contribution to the running of the schools. As I say, that is their contribution. Now, that does not fit exactly with this but it is a way that a wider view and experience are embraced. I think that is an example. I know from years ago Deputy Duhamel will remember we had a Trade and Industry Sub-Committee and we had some senior figures from the local community who, to be honest, we could not afford to have paid. They gave their time freely and willingly and made a significant contribution. That is where something like this could go. It would be perhaps a leap of faith, but I would ask Members to give it some serious consideration and not just dismiss it because they happen to have a view about Scrutiny or they happen to be an Assistant Minister and see it in some way or other as a diminishing role because I do not think that

is the case. It is something that is very worthy of consideration.

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

I think Deputy Young's proposition gets again to the nub of an issue that has been a problem since we moved to Ministerial government. That is the difficulties in passing over too many powers to a government body to ride roughshod over the majority of Members in this Assembly. In any government situation, whether it be for small islands or big countries, we have to have mechanisms in government to determine the flavour and the direction of travel, using the fancy words that are common these days to describe this process, to decide what type of government we are. But not just what type of government we are generally, but in particular for particular issues. These are the difficulties that I find myself faced with as Minister for Planning and Environment in trying to seek to influence the Assembly and other Members of the Council of Ministers in order to come to a central forum to discuss whether or not the direction of travel in relation to particular issues makes sense in general environmental terms. These, I feel, are the issues that I, along with other Members, find ourselves in great difficulty in bringing them to be openly discussed with the support of the public and to decide collectively - on an Island-wide basis if necessary through a referendum or whatever - exactly what we want to do. If we want to be a society that puts all of its eggs into a financial services basket, that is all well and good if that is the decision that we are going to make and decide upon, but if indeed we have other policies that are brought to this House suggesting that we are going to diversify our economy into other areas, we have to know exactly what that means. We have to have the courage of our conviction if, indeed, some of these new pathways of travel are things that we have not done before. It is about societal change and there are no mechanisms at the moment, I feel, since the introduction of Ministerial government to have on a regular basis, strategic debates to settle these issues once and for all. It is all very well saying that in the first 3 months of the setting up of a new Ministry or new government we are going to have the Chief Minister, one person, to come forward and tell us whatever he thinks he can get away with - maybe there is no voting structure to kick it out anyhow - as to what the long-term proposals are going to be, but that is not satisfactory. It leaves an empty feeling in the stomach and a bad taste in the mouth. We all have to be involved. There are other ways of dealing with the lacuna that we find ourselves in in trying to establish protocols and ways of working within this Chamber to encourage every Member not just to feel.. because we are persuading them to do something that everybody knows is wrong that everybody feels involved and included. My own committee or my own department through the Island Plan process operates in the old-fashioned way. I think it sets itself up and is set up as perhaps an example - I would say a shining example - of how we can all be included in the process in deciding where we want to go, what we want to do and how we are going to do it. That is why I find myself sometimes in difficulty with my other colleagues on the Council of Ministers in wanting to bring propositions to this House in order to seek the endorsement and the full buy-in of all Members of this House in equal measure to those issues. It is fundamentally important, not for everything, and there is a certain bar with the working of departments below which it does not make sense to have 51 Members all seeking to do different things. But for the very large issues, the big strategic issues, what type of society we want, what type of hospital service, what type of education service, to what extent does the Government wish to set up support systems for those who are disadvantaged, all of these are really big issues and should, I think, be discussed at regular intervals in the context of strategic plans for a particular period of time. It might well have been that an alternative way of doing things would have been to have set up the Island Plan process of the 10-year plan for other departmental areas. We could have the 10-year

health plan. We could have the 10-year social security plan. We could have an even longer plan. One of the propositions that I am about to bring to the House is an even longer energy plan, and that is another case in point where I am asking the House, everybody having had the opportunity to participate in the consultation phase and the putting together of the policies over a long period of time, to give everybody the opportunity to have the security that we are all marching in step in a particular direction for a particular period of time. So where are we with Deputy Young's

proposal? Well, I think it goes some of the way in trying to re-establish this link with the ordinary, if I can call them that, Member of this House who wishes to be included in the big decisions that the Island is going to make. What it does not do, under 26A(1) it says: "The States shall, by Regulation, provide for the establishment of panels to advise Ministers" called advisory panels. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that per se and it might well be that when Regulations, if indeed this proposal is supported, come forward we can set it up in a way that offsets my criticisms that I am going to make. In saying that we need panels to advise Ministers, we have to realise that we are still in a situation that we have a Council of Ministers headed up by a Chief Minister who may or may not be in a position of telling everybody what the overall long-term strategic proposals are going to be without going through the process of including the advisory panels or other States Members or the public or anybody before those decisions are taken. It is a difficult place to be in. If by voting for this particular Article we end up in a position whereby individual Members of the House can come together to express their collective points of view in order to twist the arm of the Minister, it would still be perhaps up to that Minister to sell that particular set of consultation to the Chief Minister. If the Chief Minister decides he does not want to do that because he is a right-leaning Minister or a left-leaning Minister in particular, and the proposals and the advice that are coming forward is to have extra input on the left or extra input on the right and it is not satisfactory, we will find ourselves in a situation where we have a structure set up which does not deliver the certainty of operation, which is what we all want. So, as I say, I think it is a step forward but I think we really do need to think that if we are going to support it, and I think perhaps I shall, that by amending the Regulations when they come forward we can find ourselves in a position that does bind the hands of the Chief Minister and of the Council of Ministers. That is something that I referred to in my short speech a number of days ago on the original proposals for the proposition in that this House has lost its capacity, I think, to strategically direct the Government or the Chief Minister or the Ministers. I think that really for me is the bit that has been missing from day one. As I say, it is a step forward but if those considerations could

be taken into account by the proposer then I think it is worthy of my support.

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

This debate, which I anticipate will go on for some time because the previous ones have always done that, is in my view a symptom of the way we go about this. Because the reason we have been struggling for the last few days to get even the smallest of changes through is because in my view as usual we are avoiding the fundamental failings of our present machinery of government and only changing little bits and pieces that might make it slightly better.

[10:00]

One of the fundamental issues probably at the top of that list is inclusivity, which we lost when we moved from the committee system. Taking up the thrust of Senator Breckon's arguments, I do wonder sometimes - and I hope I do not offend people by saying this - if the members of Scrutiny are being slightly too precious in believing that: "If we have inclusivity, then my job will be marginalised." In my view, that is simply not true because I think their job would be enhanced and improved, probably very much more rewarding as well, because the people doing this will be doing as committees used to do, scrutiny in real time. Instead of reviewing something that somebody else has already decided with possibly not complete information, you would be helping to create that policy in the first place. I will give an example. As Members will know, I am on the Planning Applications Panel. Well, we are not always unanimous. There might be 3 of us decide that an application has merit and 2 of us decide that it does not, and it is approved. Now, if one of those 3 had been a Minister of the day it would have been approved. If one of the 2 had been a Minister of the day it would have been rejected. Is it not better to have more minds than one looking at issues, especially looking at policy? I believe this amendment goes a long way towards reducing the deficit we created when we moved away from a committee system. It is a pity that the .. in fact, I thought it would have succeeded but unfortunately it did not. The proposition that was brought by.. I think it was Senator Le Sueur or was it Senator Breckon? I am not sure, P.120 was it? I thought that would have helped enormously, but sadly it was rejected. I am hoping today we will at least take a step towards helping to replace some of the benefits that we lost previously.

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Just very briefly, just to pick up on a couple of things. On the face of it, this is a proposition that normally I would have wanted to support because I have been on a number of working parties in the past and worked very closely with Senator Breckon in the past when he was bringing his Ministerial boards position. But the difference here is that for me too much is left unsaid. I do not have the certainty that there has been.. simply because I think this has come as an amendment and not as part of having come out of working very closely towards a particular aim, there has not been the detail put here as to how things would work. Somebody has talked about Scrutiny and saying this is not a threat to Scrutiny. Well, it is not but we have not addressed, in looking at this, how scrutiny would go forward and how things would work. So while I still adhere to the belief that we need to be more inclusive, and I think the day will come when we do find a mechanism for that, the time certainly is not now to change the balance. But certainly we need to look at that once we have a government which works in a more efficient way and is questioned more robustly. But for now we cannot upset the Troy rule. We cannot change that. I think that would be a step far too far for now. This proposition does not give me the certainty as to how the checks and balances in Scrutiny would be enhanced when so many more Members would be involved in developing policy and could not challenge it for that reason. While I have worked so hard before towards the Ministerial board system, this is not the system that I was working towards then and, therefore, I will not be supporting it.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Southern . No, sorry, Deputy Southern , you have already spoken on this.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Oh, did I really?

The Bailiff :

You may have forgotten.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

For the life of me I cannot remember a single word I have said. The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Oh, perhaps you were down to speak but you did not speak. [Laughter] Greffier, according to your records, did he speak or not? He is down here. [Aside] Deputy , I am so sorry, the Deputy Bailiff was presiding. He had you down but I see there is no time against it so you presumably did not speak.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Are you absolutely sure about that? [Laughter] Deputy G.P. Southern :

So long as the authority is sure about it.

The Bailiff :

I think on that basis the answer to your question is to like effect, Senator Farnham .

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am pleased to be able to speak because from thinking about my attitude a few days ago to today, I think I have changed my mind. I have always voted against these mish-mashy, wishy-washy compromises to try and make the system work in the past. However, I am coming down to a desperate need to do something about inclusivity. It is one of these weasel words like sustainability. We are all in favour of sustainable development, sustainable answers. We are all in favour of inclusivity, and yet we are markedly probably the least inclusive of Chambers that we could possibly be. We have concentrated powers, no doubt, in the hands of a few Ministers, not even all 10, and a group of Assistant Ministers who seem to do nothing but run around agreeing with their Ministers. People say yes but do not have really beefy arguments. It is not the impression I am given. I am thinking about the whole issue of the way in which we operate, the style in which we operate. I am thinking back to the old committee system and even within that there were committees that were inclusive where the President would say: "We are not going on with this any further until we get agreement. Now, what is it we can agree on and that will become our policy and we will all unite behind it." Or you had Presidents who pretty much made their mind up with their Chief Minister and if you did not like it you just had to lump it. You would register your opposition but that was it, we are not addressing you. So within the context of any structure you have a choice as to how you operate. We seem to be spectacularly good at avoiding inclusivity. It seems to me time and time again we do not get to the position where we see - as Back-Benchers, as ordinary Members, and certainly as Scrutiny members - the 3 options that the officers have come up with as ways to do this particular policy aim. We never get to see those 3 options. We get to see the one. What we get when we are at that stage with 3 options in front of us to examine and test, we get (xiv), the 3 dread letters, exemption 14 - "Policy in development", so you do not get to look at it. As Scrutiny, certainly the number of times we sit there going: "What are we going to do? We could look at this, it is a vital issue. Oh, it is policy in development. We

could look at this. Oh, no, the Minister has not decided on that yet and it is still in development. Oh, we could look at that or we should go over there. Oh, no, it is in its early days. That has hardly been developed. It is hardly neonate." So you get bogged down and stuck. There is nothing meaty you can look at because it is all policy in development. Believe you me, Minister after Minister can take the best part of 3 years to come up with policy that is not in development, by which time the Scrutiny Panel has probably fallen asleep or fallen off its chair waiting in order to get hold of something. So, in principle, the ability to look, examine, challenge - that is the word, I think - policy in development so that we know we have had a rounded debate before it comes to this Chamber is probably worthwhile. But it has to be in the context of a change of mindset, and thinking about how we operate now it seems to me that if I think policy needs to be challenged then I take a simple choice. I put up a proposition or I make an amendment and we have the debate here in this Chamber. But on a number of occasions, and you have seen it happen, a proposition, say, brought by me or by another Back-Bencher is vehemently opposed on the floor of the Chamber for a couple of hours and then somebody says: "Hang on, there is absolutely no reason why we should not accept this. It is very close to what our policy is anyway" and all of a sudden it flips. People suddenly have listened. Ministers occasionally listen. In the majority of cases they do not until you get it to the Chamber. If you want a debate on something, bring the proposition, bring the amendment, and that is how you have the debate. If that opportunity were enabled at a stage prior to Ministers coming into the Chamber with a fixed idea and prepared to go to the barricades to defend their idea, then that might be useful, and very useful particularly for the Back-Bencher who is determined to influence the direction in which people go. Now, sometimes as a Back-Bencher that takes 2, 3, 4 years before you finally get something that you first tried years back knowing that as you hear the arguments you know the way to go in order to get something like what you set out to do delivered. It is possible to do that but by golly it is difficult. It is a difficult system that we are operating at the moment. If we were to have a more open channel of communication where advice was taken in the context of attempting to go forward in a unified way and not just having the argument: "We have had the argument/discussion. We do not like your idea. We do not like what you are bringing to the table. Therefore, we will just ignore it" if it is more of the same then, of course, it will not work and we will just end up frustrated and feeling incapable. However, if there is a chance that the mindset has changed and it becomes more open and more - key word - inclusive, then I am prepared to give my support to this.

The Bailiff :

Senator Farnham , do you wish to speak as I made the same error for you in relation to you already speaking.?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, I will just pull out my notes and I will give way to Senator Maclean if I may.

6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Senator Farnham is so kind. I think Deputy Young should be congratulated for bringing this amendment. I certainly agreed with the principle of it. He is clearly trying to do something which I think we would all sign up to, and that is to improve decision-making by seeking to put in place a structure that will help the Minister have better advice. It is interesting that we can look to other examples - Cornwall has been mentioned - but much closer at home to our sister island in Guernsey who operate a Ministerial system - under that name at least - with a board sitting underneath the Minister. Interestingly, those boards or Ministerial departments also contain an adviser, and it is a private sector adviser which sits on the board and gives advice to the members and, indeed, the Minister himself. I think in some respects that is interesting. Having said that, I have witnessed the Guernsey system in operation and it is, to say the very least, cumbersome on the decision-making process. The advice may be good but the time process and suchlike to reach the final decision does seem to be somewhat protracted. I think that is one of the advantages that we have seen since moving from the committee system, which undoubtedly had its benefits, to the Ministerial system that we currently operate under. Without doubt, though, the idea of utilising the talents and experience of other Members within the Assembly is a good and positive thing and certainly I often seek the advice of Members on particular matters.

[10:15]

I think in a more formal structure there is some use and validity in developing this idea further to ensure that more Members have a useful contribution to make with regard to policymaking within individual departments. But I do think equally it is important to consider the utilisation of external advisers. I have some experience, as Members will know. We have set up through Economic Development a number of boards, the Shadow Tourism Board, for example, the Ports Shadow Board. Those are both advisory, as Members will be aware, not supervisory boards. They contain private sector expertise and I can tell Members that it is invaluable to have that breadth and depth of professional experience to provide advice when considering policy formation and strategy. I think Ministerial departments would benefit in a similar way to a similar type of structure. In summary, I think that it would be useful to take this idea of Deputy Young's and develop it further. In fact, I note that in his amendment he does not make it clear whether he is referring to Members of the Assembly or external advisers to form part of the advisory panels to which he refers. It is silent on that. I think there is a view by Members, the way that a number have spoken this morning, that it is indeed solely States Members that Deputy Young has in mind to populate such an advisory panel. Perhaps he might clarify that point. It would be interesting to know what exactly he had in mind for the constitution of the panels to which he refers in his amendment. But I go back probably to the Connétable of St. Mary 's point about the lack of detail. I think I would like to see this idea taken away and worked up in some more detail. I fully support the principle of improving decision-making. I fully support the idea of advisers being utilised by departments. There are cost implications, we do need to be conscious of that, but if it improves the decision- making process then that would represent in my view potentially a good return on that investment. Not all advisers necessarily would need to be remunerated in any event. So I cannot support the proposition as it stands or the amendment as it stands, but I would certainly take away the idea and be prepared to look at it again in more detail to ensure that we have something more workable, perhaps with the detail attached to it, that would be supportable in the future.

7. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

I think the fact that we are even talking about creating a new and additional level of political bureaucracy, which is effectively finding new jobs for us to do because some of us do not feel included, indicates to me that we really have too many States Members. Because really, have we not already got enough to do? This proposal would undoubtedly create work. It would delay decisions and it would, as Deputy Southern intimated, cause wishy-washy compromises, which is not in the best interests of the Island and is certainly not good government. Many Members have spoken about inclusivity and that, of course, is important, but this will not create or assist any inclusivity. It cannot because this would not create any decision-making powers for those Members who were elected to these boards. What really compromises inclusivity, in fact, is the Troy rule. We cannot have it both ways because the Troy rule insists by law, or by Standing Orders as it will be, that only 21 or 22 Members can be decision-makers, can only be Ministers and Assistant Ministers. If we remove that, more Ministers could have more Assistant Ministers; therefore, more Members would be involved in the decision-making process. That is the only way. You cannot have a rule which says you are excluded and then demand inclusivity. It really does not work.

8. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Well, I align myself with the Constable of St. Clement almost completely with his views and a good point made that Members must not lose sight of is the issue relating to the Troy rule. We have to think about this logistically as well because to the best of my figures I think there are approximately 40 Members involved in the Government and in Scrutiny, which does not leave many Members to populate these panels. Over and above those who are not involved, the few Members who are not involved in any of the Scrutiny or the Government, then they are certainly sitting on other committees, boards, trusts, advisory panels and so on. But then I would also agree with some of what Senator Maclean said. We do have to make sure that our decision-making is as inclusive as possible, but it would be a good idea for us to reshape the next Government and see where we stand then. Another concern I have is - and we have seen it before, it is sort of the nature of the beast a little bit with politics - how confidentiality could undoubtedly - and I am sorry, I do not mean to offend Members - be compromised. We have seen it before. There are leaks and so on. I think sadly some Members who may not be aligned with a Government or a Ministerial policy might feel obliged or loyalty to their political leanings or party to use information in a way that would not be productive. These sorts of things can end up doing more harm than they can good.

9. Senator I.J. Gorst :

This is quite a difficult debate for me because I think that had I been speaking 3 years ago I might have been taking a different view from the one that I will be taking this morning. I want to start my remarks this morning by saying that, as far as I am concerned, I think the Scrutiny function throughout the last 2½ years, led obviously by the President of the Chairmen's Committee, Deputy Vallois, but with some excellent Chairmen of Committees and Members, have worked very well. I think that they have, among the Members of this Assembly, transformed the view that Scrutiny can work well and can hold Government to account and can to some extent mean that Ministers are rightly cautious because they know that Scrutiny are going to ask the difficult questions and are not going to be afraid of holding Ministers and departments to account. That does not, of course, mean that Ministers will always accept the view put forward by scrutiny and sometimes Ministers have so nailed their mast to a particular policy direction, as we saw during the population debate, that the only answer is for this Assembly ultimately to consider what a Minister might be saying and what a Scrutiny Panel might be saying about the issue and for this Assembly to decide. That, I believe, shows that Government, both the Executive and the Scrutiny function, is working well. I think that those Members who have been responsible for delivering this change should be congratulated.

The Bailiff :

I am so sorry, there is too much talking going on on the bench. I cannot hear what is going on. Can you please listen?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Perhaps that is of benefit. Why do I say that? Because I started this session being very concerned about a word that a number of Members have spoken of and I understand that concern, and that is "inclusivity". I think the issue is that when we often have used the word inclusivity in the past, we have without realising it been thinking of the way that the committee system functioned where every Member of this Assembly was, in effect, in the Executive and in Government involved in those decisions. But the process that we currently have, when you step back from it and analyse it, there is inclusivity but it is just undertaken in a different way. I believe that it can make for good decisions which obviously affect our community. I fear that accepting the proposal, albeit I understand Deputy Young's reasons for doing so.. because they spent 2 years trying to understand how they could develop a system that was more inclusive, and to be fair to the Machinery of Government sub-group they put in a section that they called non-Executive boards and they felt that that dealt with one of their concerns about inclusivity. But during the in committee debate this Assembly, those who spoke should I say, largely said that they were concerned about those non- Executive boards and the effect it would have on a proper and good functioning Scrutiny. At the same time, of course, included in those recommendations was a change to scrutiny to allow Scrutiny to act more flexibly. Interestingly, again, in that in committee debate many Members stood up and said yes, they would support Scrutiny in allowing it to be more flexible. Of course, when we went into the second stage and then referred back to the President's Committee a number of chairmen then felt that they needed more work to be done around that flexibility to understand what it would mean for the standing committee structure, what it would mean for being able to pick topics and scrutinise them in an effective and timely way. Therefore, that led me in the amendment 8 to change the law which will allow Scrutiny to go away and think again about those areas of flexibility. The reason I highlight that is because I think that that is the place in which the President of the Scrutiny function can work with Deputy Young if he so wishes, and the members of the sub- group, and consider how their concerns about inclusivity and looking at other models can create flexibility in the Scrutiny function which is working so well. So, after reflection, again I suppose I understand Deputy Southern 's frustration that this morning we hear him moving from a very long held view - he stood up in this Assembly and supported Scrutiny and said that this Assembly needed to respect it more, Ministers needed to respect it more, Ministers needed to engage with it more - he seems to have changed his view. I would ask him just to hold on to the view that he has historically held because I think that was the right one and I think that he again can work with the President of the Chairmen's Committee to deal with some of the concerns that he has. I do not believe that we today want to make a decision which is going to undermine Scrutiny and undermine

the great work that they have been doing over the last 2½ years. If I stepped back and was a little bit partisan in my role, I could be encouraging Members to support this amendment because I think that would make life easier for Ministers. That is not good Government. It is good Government that Scrutiny is strong, that they are independent and that they are able to challenge Ministers in an appropriate way. Therefore, I ask that Members do not almost by sleight of hand do something this morning which undermines the great work that Scrutiny have done but allows the Chairmen's Committee now to go away and consider those issues that Article 10 - hopefully we will get to that shortly - will allow them to go away and consider how they wish to structure themselves to create the flexibility and perhaps enable a bit more inclusivity, which I know is at the heart of the mover of this amendment.

10. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Very briefly, it is really encouraging to hear the Chief Minister extolling the virtues of Scrutiny. However, I would say to him for Scrutiny to work properly and efficiently it needs to be allowed sufficient time to undertake its work and it needs the States Members to be able to have time to not only read and digest reports but equally to see Ministerial responses before debates are had.

[10:30]

However, I do think that there is one thing that perhaps the Chief Minister and I do agree with, is that to dive-in and adopt this particular proposal at this moment in time would be a little bit premature. But I was hoping to hear a little bit more from the Chief Minister about saying: "Well, okay, this is perhaps the wrong time to be introducing this but let us give it a go." What is wrong with a pilot? What is wrong with setting up some form of shadow system which was encased with scrutiny? I think if there is a way forward it is not pick it up and kick it in the long grass and tell the Chairmen's Committee and Deputy Young to come back with it at a later date with additional proposals, but it is charge P.P.C., maybe with the Chief Minister and to look at how we could pilot some form of scheme to see if it works. If it does not, or there are lessons to be learned, that is the time to do it, and then we can make proper informed decisions about the way forward. Perhaps I would like to suggest to the Chief Minister and others that that would be, I think, a positive way forward where we build on what we have got; because I do believe that Scrutiny is good, it is necessary and very important as a balance to Ministerial government, however, I do think that perhaps there is an opportunity to have some form of system that does allow an involvement of States Members in policy development.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Then I invite Deputy Young to reply.

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

Thank you to Members who have spoken because I think the adjournment was useful to help reflect because we have an opportunity today, I think, to make a major change which, as the Constable of St. Mary summed up beautifully I think, that it has the potential to change the balance between the way this Assembly works as an Assembly and we fulfil our political roles that we were elected to do, and the Council of Ministers. I think there have been a number of occasions since Ministerial government was introduced where the problem was absolutely staring everybody in the face, lack of inclusivity and weakness in Government which, effectively, has resulted 8 or 9 years later in a disconnect with the community. This proposal is a decision in principle, because the detail can be worked up in the Regulations. The Regulations can deal with many of the issues of implementation, questions that the Members have raised in their comments but, of course, if the opportunity is not taken to put those powers in the law now there will not be, I do not believe, an early opportunity, certainly I do not think for the next 4 or 5 years in any event, and I certainly shall not be in the Assembly, but that is not an issue. I see it as my public duty to make as strong a case as I can now as to why Members should search their hearts and not wreck this constructive solution and consign it to the bin for some of the reasons that have been aired today. Throughout my working life I have looked for practical, pragmatic solutions, outcomes that matter. You have to accept compromises on the way, you have to accept details that have to be sorted out subsequently but, without those constructive solution-makers in life, we will always find reasons why not to do things. Of course, when I look back on the States debates, I had a chance to read back over the transcript of the Ministerial debate, look back over what happened in previous debates and I see the same elements happening here again. There are a number of camps from which Members come at this concept; some of them I think fortunately have not manifested themselves as strongly as I feared. I know, for example, there are those with perhaps a more radical tendency who do not want to see, may not want to see our consensus government work, ultimately because it will lead to party politics and a mirroring of what happens in assemblies elsewhere. Fortunately, that has not happened, I am delighted that Members who have spoken have been prepared to go with the principle and give it a try. Of course, there are those who want the power; I love Senator Norman to bits but, my word - sorry, Constable Norman, my apologies - but I still think he has one complete extreme view. Of course, if you follow Constable Norman's argument, what is the point of being an elected Member? What can you bring? All we need to have is a Council of Ministers to get on with the job and rubberstamp. That is not a vision I share, nor do I believe it is a vision the public share and there have always been those, but that is an extreme view of Constable Norman, the Constable of St. Clement, but of course there is the Council of Ministers. I am delighted that our Minister for Planning and Environment, Deputy Duhamel, gave us an honest and open view of his view as a Minister, the difficulties he has and the potential benefit he sees, but I know there are other Ministers where that is an anathema to them, they absolutely want centralist power. I am in the middle, there is a middle-ground of reasonable people .. sorry, reasonable viewpoints; I do not want to personalise this. The Chief Minister, unfortunately, sits in that camp. I am really disappointed with the Chief Minister, what he said just now. What we have got is an alliance between the Chief Minister and Deputy Vallois about how this proposal will wreck Scrutiny. It will not. No. I am being told to calm down from the Minister who is known for his animated

approach, and I have seen him get through stuff in this Assembly by his sheer power of oratory. [Laughter] I am going to try and say to you: "Think." [Interruption] Apologies if I bang, Sir. Thankfully we had the adjournment because, I will be honest, after that start, I thought this debate was lost. Trying to engage Members with the importance of this subject, late in the hour when we have had 3 days of absolute purgatory [Laughter] and I am sorry if that is not a parliamentary word. Of course, I put a written question to the Chief Minister on 4th March, not too long ago, and in it he talks about the Machinery of Government Committee and so on and he says: "Members might benefit from a formal mechanism where they might express an interest in serving in a particular Executive or non-Executive capacity, supported by a brief rationale for wishing to pursue those roles. This recommendation has been supported by the steering group." Then he says: "I hope this will gain the support of the States Assembly." Written answer. What do we hear now? So I thought: "Well, what else can we get?" so I also put a couple of other questions, I put a question on 4th March, it was a written answer, and I asked about the number of groups established by the Council of Ministers who influence policy. I do not know if Members have read the list, but I counted them up: 184 groups, nearly all populated by civil servants. We need civil servants [Interruption] [Laughter] .. well, certainly if we go this way, we will need .. anyway, 184? So I thought: "I am going to do analysis of this. How many involve States Members?" and I counted, there are about 2 or 3. I think Deputy Duhamel, to his credit, follows his words. He has got inclusive structures. Of course, I asked: "Well, how many of these are policies?" the answer says: "They are all operational. They are not policy." When you read through some of the subjects you think: "Well, these are the people that should be standing for election, not me."  It was summed-up when I went on the radio on Sunday and somebody sent an email in and said: "The States Members

have less of an influence than .." in this particular case it was the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey Development Company; jolly nice chap, and he said: "Well, they are right", we are in a situation where the elected Members of this Assembly, have less and less influence, and it is not about decision-making. Nobody wants to retreat back to the committee system of Acts and decisions on every minor point, it is about setting the policy direction, as Deputy Duhamel says. I absolutely thank him for his remarks, because he summed it up so beautifully. We have got an answer from the Chief Minister who says he is committed to the principle but he says no because he joins with those who take the view that Scrutiny would be undermined. Also, one other thing while we are on the Chief Minister, I thought: well, there are these things called Ministerial Steering Groups. I put another question on 4th March and I said: "Please can I have details: there are a number of these groups, oversight or Ministerial groups, that have been established by the Council of Ministers for a development or revision of policy, and tell us the details of the constitution, the terms of reference, the membership of Ministers, Assistant Ministers, elected Ministers, frequency of meetings, whether there are minutes, whether the group has delegated authority and date of the last meeting." The answer was - a very nice answer - that the Council of Ministers: "Accepted the recommendation of the Machinery of Government interim report that said they should be required to publish and keep updated a list of all these advisory groups formed to progress the development or revision of policy." Then it says, the punch line: "The list will be published during March 2014 responding to all these points." Where is it? Where are we now? What is today's date? Where is it? That is the degree of disregard that we have as ordinary Members. The public cannot understand when they come to us with issues, we put questions, we raise issues, and we are treated with dismissal: "This does not matter. What does it matter? Deputy Young; we have probably seen that." It does not happen. Deputy Southern spoke about a change of culture and the Constable of St. Mary, absolutely right: the proposal I have brought is an in- principle decision which allows the Assembly, through the mechanism of P.P.C. and this House, through Regulations, to set the way, the practicalities of how that would work. It is a fundamental tool that we do not have. I think I have lost my way now in my passion. I also looked at another little clue about this .. I have found my notes; I had left them in the vacant seat next door. I could not attend the report on accounts presentation because obviously I had to prepare for the debate we had proposing this. Of course, I commend this document, this is a gem. In the notes there are all sorts of secrets. This is a mine of information. Appendix A at 5.7 in the report and accounts, page 100, tells us about our corporate government framework. There are some really good principles here: "Focuses on the purpose and the outcomes for the community and creating an implementation of vision for the Island" that is one of the objectives, and then: "States Members and officers working together to achieve a common purpose" and then: "Demonstrating the values of good governance" and then: "Developing the capacity and capability of States Members to be effective" and officers, of course: "In engaging with Islanders and stakeholders to ensure robust accountability." Fabulous objectives. But then there is a little colour chart underneath and it tells you, in its nice colour-coded system, where our various bits of government come in this ranking,

and Scrutiny is one of those. Scrutiny is, I suppose, straw-coloured. [10:45]

They are ranked. First of all, there is: "Openness and inclusivity"; well, do Scrutiny get ranked as openness and inclusivity? No. What comes under that is internal newsletters, accountability.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Sir, is the Deputy meant to be summing up some time today? The Bailiff :

Carry on, Deputy .

Deputy J.H. Young:

Thank you, Sir. I am grateful for that. At 6.00 a.m. this morning I was having an enjoyable read of this; I am enjoying it too much, and I am sorry. Then it has got: "Accountability" here in blue, and I will sum it up, but the point is this, on every one of these charts Scrutiny processes are stuck at the bottom of the list on one criteria only: integrity. Nothing wrong with that, but do they not count for openness and inclusivity? Do they not count for accountability? No. It really is fickle. States published accounts; now we know. More care, I think, taken with that. Of course, there were those theorists, and I think hopefully they have not surfaced in this debate so far, but I did read through the in committee debate on this section of what was then the proposal for non-elected members, which were described as kind of a groupie tendency. I am hoping that the enthusiasts, or those who see it as a group tendency, will not oppose this amendment. Cornwall, I think, have demonstrated that you can have processes that work and retain the independent culture of our community and you do not have to go the whole hog, as going back to committee. Now, I really like Deputy Vallois, I really enjoyed working with her on the Chairmen's Committee but my experience as Chairman of the Environment Scrutiny Panel says that there are real issues about the effectiveness of Scrutiny, and it is not Deputy Vallois' fault that those issues are still there after 8 years. What happens? We have had some dreadful situations in this House with really excellent reports, a fantastic amount of work had been done, and those recommendations are not even listened to. Timetables are set that are sheer impossible. We all know what it is like and, in the end, one feels: "What is the point?" Then we have got this limited capacity; I see it as like an hour glass, access to information. Deputy Martin spoke of this. The civil servants and the departments and the Ministers have got all the information, the Scrutiny Panels have to go through a narrow channel with one civil servant .. I have got one, everything has to go through that channel to get the information and, of course, it is slow and it is narrow. Your Scrutiny officer goes on holiday and you are stuck for 2 weeks, civil servants try and cover, it is impossible. So you have got a critical capacity. There were loads of things I wanted to do in Deputy Duhamel's department: cannot do them, it has just run out of time, it is impossible. We just do not have the resources. That is really not good. So if we have got a function that is already weak, it is not because there is a lack of commitment on behalf of the people running  it. Because Deputy Luce  and I  spoke, he  is chairman of another  panel .. I absolutely agree with him that working with Ministers co-operatively is the best way, but the problem is that one is caught between working constructively with Ministers on policy under development or one is then criticised for going soft. I have had talks of: "Well, I will bring a vote of no confidence in you as Scrutiny Chairman." Why? Because I am trying to work with one Minister, trying to get information, working on policy development. That works well, but you cannot do that and then turn round later and do an independent review as if you had had no input to it. That is the choice every panel has to make. So my solution says: "Let us have real effective Scrutiny. Let us take out the bit that causes the conflict, the policy development role, and put that into what I call advisory panels." Cornwall call them P.A.C.s (Portfolio Advisory Committees), previously they have been called boards, or whatever you like, but take that out and so your Scrutiny Panels will then be much more effective. So it certainly does not replace Scrutiny, it absolutely strengthens it. Now, I agree with what the Chief Minister says and Deputy Vallois says about this thing called a Scrutiny Management Committee. Yes, during the process of discussion with these issues I certainly had a problem because members of my panel and others did not like it, but I think we have been down a journey where we have come to a view that there are elements in

Scrutiny that can and should change. I look no further than the Scrutiny rules in Cornwall. I do not know if Members have looked these up. What have they got? They have got powers whereby the Scrutiny Panels can call or require matters to be considered by their cabinet. How many times have I met the Council of Ministers since I have been a Scrutiny Chairman? Once. Cornwall has rules: issues that cannot be resolved go through that route. There are call-ins when things go wrong, officers called to account. It is all there. It is possible to have Scrutiny rules within the framework

of those bodies and make them work; they have proved it. Of course, there is an issue I have to confess to: if you adopt my amendment, there is no question, Members already work hard in this Assembly, but they are going to have to work a lot harder and it may be that some Members find that .. I have got to be frank about it: it is an extra commitment, Members will need to double up their roles and multitask. The rules for that will have to be worked out by P.P.C., but when we met and spoke with Cornwall, they do that very successfully, there are members that feel much more preferable doing that Scrutiny function and those that are better at policy development, so a dual role. I think those jobs are entirely separate. I plea with Members, this is the third time a proposal has been on the table to give that inclusivity, to solve or at least give the capability of the solving of problems, detail goes in regulations, without breaching the Troy rule. There are those who may say: "Well, this is not the answer, get rid of the Troy rule and then we can all be Assistant Ministers, we can all be members of the Executive." I do not think that day will ever come and we will carry on, Members like myself - it will be other Members - bringing constructive proposals to give an extra tool in our armoury of making this Assembly really effective. Of course, why did I bring it? I did P.33; looking at what we have approved, the substantive debate, how does my amendment relate to that? Well, you can ask, I suppose: "Was it worth it?" I do not know, but I am absolutely sure that my amendment will improve it. We will get something very substantial for this community if my amendment is approved. It puts in checks and balances that are not there if we vote P.33 in third reading. The detail: we have the power, this Assembly will approve it through regulations and, when we have to come to press our button on pour or contre for the final P.33 where we finished up .. I can see the Chief Minister is not listening, I want to know that in these proposals is this amendment with its radical change. Certainly, that will be a major factor in my Third-Reading vote. I ask Members: please, do not consign these ideas to the dustbin, give them a chance. I could go through all the points of detail: Senator Maclean .. the proposal was drafted by the Law Draftsmen for me, it is open; if Members want to go a whole mile later on to widen it out, I personally say, for my proposal, that was not my intent. My intent was to get the principle established and then those details can be revisited at a later date. So, Sir, I ask for the

proposition and I ask for the appel. The Bailiff :

The appel is called for in relation to the amendment of Deputy Young. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

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

Very well, then we return to the main proposition, and the next thing would be Article 9, but I understand, Chief Minister, that is not being proposed, is that right?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

That is correct, Sir, I would just like to propose Article 10 now.

The Bailiff :

So we then come to Article 10. I invite the Chief Minister to propose that.

1.2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :

This Article amends an existing prohibition on delegations which will mean, if that is amended, a Minister will in future be able to delegate to an Assistant Minister a power to make an enactment or a power to decide an appeal which can only be decided under an enactment.

The Bailiff :

Is Article 10 seconded? [Seconded] Does any other Member wish to speak on Article 10? All those in favour of adopting Article 10, please show. Those against? Article 10 is adopted.

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

The Bailiff :

Article 11, I think you are not proposing, Chief Minister, is that correct?

1.3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :

That is correct, Sir. Article 11 will not be proposed, which then means I think we come on to the proposed new Article 11.

The Bailiff :

Yes. Very well. Then the next matter is the eighth amendment lodged by Senator Ozouf , which proposes a new Article 11. I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

The  proposed  new  Article.   After  Article 11,  insert  the  following  Article  and  renumber  the remaining Articles accordingly: 12, Article 44 repeal. Article 44 is repealed.

The Bailiff :

Before that can be proposed, Senator, I think it is necessary for a proposition to suspend the Standing Order.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Sir, I have just been advised by the Greffier that because this is a matter which affects Members the Standing Order in relation to, I think it was Standing Order ..

The Bailiff :

106.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

106, needs to be lifted. So I propose for Standing Order 106, because it related to a matter which could directly affect Members' remuneration, be suspended.

The Bailiff :

Yes. So the proposition is that Standing Order 106, which deals with the declarations of interest, be suspended on the basis that Members have a direct financial interest in the discussion. Is that proposition by Senator Ozouf to lift Standing Order seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition to lift Standing Orders?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think there is a longstanding precedent that we do not discuss our own pay in this Assembly. Whenever remuneration amendments have come up, I think it has been consistent recently that we do not do that because it is unseemly. It would seem to me that, if the States were minded to change the substantive proposition that Senator Ozouf is putting forward, then that should come from objective independent advice and recommendations. I know that is perhaps slightly complex, but that has not happened, so I see no reason for us to be lifting this Standing Order but to be consistent, as we have been in the past.

The Bailiff :

Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition to lift Standing Orders? Do you wish to reply, Senator Ozouf ?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I would respectfully point Deputy Tadier to the own observations of the independent body which expresses the hope that the opportunity would be taken to address the issue of an appropriate modern remuneration structure for States Members. They have said that they are unable to discuss effectively the issue of remuneration because of the restriction of the Article that is being put forward.

[11:00]

So, not only do I think it is appropriate that Members agree to lift Standing Orders, but it is appropriate to have a debate on something that the independent body has effectively, sotto voce, asked for us to do. So it is appropriate and I stand by the proposition and ask Members to vote in favour of suspending Standing Order 106.

The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel is asked for then in relation to the proposition of Senator Ozouf to lift Standing Orders by suspending Standing Order 106 concerning declarations of financial interest. If you want to lift Standing Orders, vote pour, if you do not, you vote contre. The Greffier will open the voting.