States Meeting Transcript - 16th December 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 16th DECEMBER 2015

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4 Senator A.K.F. Green: .........................................................................4

1. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.136/2015) - resumption................................................................4

Mr. R.J. MacRae , Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:...............................................4

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):.....................5
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:........................................................................5

2. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 8) (Miscellaneous Transfers) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.46/2015) (Principles approved on 20th October 2015).....7

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..................................................7
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :........................................................................8

3. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 8) (Miscellaneous Transfers) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.46/2015): second amendment (P.46/2015) ................8

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):...................................................................................9
2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................12
3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................14
4. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade:.................................................14
5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................14
6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................15
7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................17
8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................17
9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................18
10. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................19
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................20
12. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................22
13. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ..............................................23
14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................24
15. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................25
16. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:.....................................................26
17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................26

4. Draft States of Jersey (Transfer of Functions No. 8) (Miscellaneous Transfers) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.46/2015) - resumption....................................30

2.4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................30

3 Christmas Bonus: introduction of means-tested bonus (P.141/2015)..................31

3.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................33
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................34
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................35
4. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................35
5. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:..................................................35
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................36
7. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ....................................................36
8. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade:.....................................................37
9. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................37
10. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................38
11. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:............................................................39
12. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................39
13. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................40
14. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................41
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................42
16. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................45 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................45

17. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..............................................45
18. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................46
19. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................47
20. Senator A.K.F. Green:...............................................................48
21. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................49
22. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................49
23. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :.............................................................50
24. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................50
25. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................50
26. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................53
27. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................55
28. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................57
29. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................59

4. Public Employees Contributory Retirement Scheme Committee of Management: membership (P.148/2015)................................................................63

4.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................63

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................64

5. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....64

5.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:..................................................................64

APPRECIATION TO THE GREFFIER OF THE STATES...................................64

6.1 The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................64

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................65

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................65

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................66
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................68
4. The Bailiff :.............................................................................69

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................71

[9:30]

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

Senator A.K.F. Green:

Sorry, Sir, before we commence, could I just take this opportunity to correct an answer to a question I gave during Questions without notice? The Constable of St. Mary asked me about G.P. (general practitioner) access to patient records. My response to that was that G.P.s do have access to patient records out of hours. In fact, I was a bit premature. If you are fortunate enough to have your own G.P. then of course they have access to your records, but we are hoping that all G.P.s will have access to the EMIS system sometime next year. So I was a bit premature with my response, which I said everybody had access at the present time, so I apologise for that.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I thank the Minister for his clarification.

1. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.136/2015) - resumption

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . When the States adjourned last night on consideration of P.136, the Attorney was going to give further consideration overnight and you are ready to give more advice at the moment.

Mr. R.J. MacRae , Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

I am grateful. Yes, before we adjourned the Deputy of St. Ouen asked 3 questions in relation to the Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 10) (Jersey) Regulations 201- and those questions arose from a consideration of the second page of the report under the title "Assessment notices", particularly the second paragraph of that section. The 3 questions were: "How can they issue a final notice for 2015 during 2015? Secondly, how can you retrospectively convert a final notice into an estimate? Thirdly, why is there reference to 2014 in the last sentence of the second paragraph under the title Assessment notices'?" If I can answer those 3 questions compendiously by considering the first 2 paragraphs of the report under that title, I will do so now. As we can see, the report says: "As the Long-Term Care liability is based on current year income" so that would be 2015 for this year: "the collection of contributions during the year will always be based on an estimate, and that estimate may be for the previous year for a current employee, possibly the year prior to that for the self-employed, and the current year for new employees and a final assessment cannot be issued during the year itself. This will be provided in the following year once the income for that year has been assessed." The final figure for 2015 will never been known until 2016. Going back to the text: "Adapting existing income tax assessment notices to include the additional Long-Term Care contribution has resulted in final notices being sent for both Long-Term Care contributions and income tax liability." So pausing there, if one looks at one's 2014 assessment received in 2015, one will simply see a title saying: "L.T.C. (Long-Term Care) contribution" and not indicating, as must be the case, that it must be an estimate for this year, until of course this year has come to an end. Under the current legislation, this is not correct, as a final notice for the 2015 Long-Term Care contribution will be issued in 2016, when the individual's 2015 income has been assessed. There is a lack of clarity in that the Long-Term Care contribution liability referred to in the 2014 assessment notices and of course those notices being received in the last few months in relation to the last tax calendar year is in respect of an estimate of that final liability. In fact, during this year, this year being the first year of the L.T.C. contribution, it is only possible of course for there to be an assessment for this year. That would apply to any calendar year, because of course the income figure is not known until the end of that year. That will be made clear in future years. If we look to the Regulations themselves, the first Regulation inserts 54D under the title: "Transitional provisions for L.T.C. contribution in 2015. It is provided any notice issued by the Comptroller in 2015 in respect of a person's L.T.C. contribution for that year shall be taken to be a notice of the estimate of that amount served and calculated" and so on. In reality, the figure for this year can only ever have been a notice and that simply declares that is the case. This is not the case of a retrospective introduction of a tax or charge, as the provisions of 1C, which create the liability from the beginning of this year onwards and the obligation to pay within this year are unchanged. I hope that answers the questions I was asked.

Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

I am most grateful to the Attorney General for his assistance to the Assembly and for the work he has done overnight. The advice that has been given has answered my queries and I am satisfied. I am grateful.

The Bailiff :

We return to the debate on the principles. Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles? Then I call on the Minister to reply.

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Social Security):

Thank you to the Deputy of St. Ouen for his question and the A.G. (Attorney General) for explaining it. If I can take the opportunity to briefly answer Deputy Le Fondré's question, which was about the delays in some of the payments being made. This did happen. There were some teething problems to start with, but now with more staff applied to the assessment and analysis both in Health and Social Services for the social care assessment and the financial assessments in Social Security, the delays are now minimised. I propose the main principles.

The Bailiff :

All Members in favour of adopting the principles, kindly show. Those against? The principles are adopted. In light of the contributions made so far, are you proposing the Regulations en bloc?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Sorry, Scrutiny, yes.

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

May I just briefly ..

The Bailiff :

Just a moment. Scrutiny, Deputy ?

The Deputy of St. Ouen (Chairman, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel): We do not wish to take this on, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Yes, Minister.

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I will just very briefly describe them for Members. Regulation 1 makes the changes to the Social Security (Jersey)  Law, a new Article 54D is added to the law. This Article confirms all the assessments for Long-Term Care contributions issued in 2015 are estimates of liability. The format of the assessment used this year did not make this clear and a new format will be provided in 2016, as just explained by the Attorney General. These assessment notices are provided from the income tax I.T. (information technology) system, which is urgently in need of replacement, and I can confirm that work on a new system is already underway. The remainder of Regulation 1 makes changes to Schedule 1D of the Social Security (Jersey) Law.  This schedule explains how Long- Term Care contributions are collected from different types of taxpayer. Changes are made to the description of the assessment notice. In future, an income tax notice can be issued with or without a Long-Term Care notice. An assessment notice can give information on the Long-Term Care final liability or an estimate of the liability.

[9:45]

A new paragraph is added to give details of the calculation of the amount of contribution or the I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment System) rate to be used in each stage of the assessment process. There are 3 types of taxpayer identified: (a) taxpayers who make direct payments of income tax in 2 instalments during the year; (b) taxpayers who pay using the I.T.I.S. system on a prior year basis; and (c) taxpayer who pay using the I.T.I.S. system on a current year basis. Depending on the stage of the process and the type of taxpayer, the calculation can refer to the actual tax liability from 2 years ago. The actual tax liability from one year ago will be estimated liability for the current year. As the calculations are now described in more detail, there is no longer any need to refer to a provisional effective rate and these references can be removed from the legislation. The second Regulation makes a small change to the Income Tax (Jersey) Law to provide a correct cross- reference  to  the  amended  Social  Security  (Jersey)  Law  and  the  third  Regulation  of  these Regulations come into force tomorrow. I propose the Regulations.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the Regulations? All those in favour of adopting the Regulations, kindly show. Those against? The Regulations are adopted. Third Reading, Minister?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, may I propose the Regulations in the Third Reading? The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

May I call for the appel, please?

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. The vote is on whether to adopt the Regulation P.136 in the Third Reading and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

2. Draft States of Jersey(Transfer of Functions No. 8) (Miscellaneous Transfers) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.46/2015) (Principles approved on 20th October 2015)

The Bailiff :

We now come to P.46, where the principles were approved and the matter referred to Scrutiny. A Scrutiny Report has been presented. Chief Minister, you wish to propose the Regulations?

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

If I may, Members will be aware that the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel have got an amendment to Regulation 6, therefore if I could take 1 to 5 in the first instance. These Articles give effect to the changes across the Economic Development Department, the Education, Sport and Culture Department and my own department. I want to start by saying that I am extremely grateful to

Deputy Brée and his panel for the work that they have done in reviewing these changes and I think the fair - and I hope Members saw it as positive - report that they have produced in regard to these changes. I think it is fair to say that Ministers have already started to work as if the functions were being changed and we have put in place appropriate delegations with Assistant Ministers right across the departments to do that, but it really does need the final change to deliver the synergies and allow not only Ministers but officers across the departments to work in the new way and deliver on the strategic priorities that I and the Council of Ministers think are so important for Jersey's future. We will have, if the States adopt these Regulations, the new Department for Education and they will be rightly focusing on education and skills. I do not think there is anyone in this Assembly that does not think it is right that they give their 100 per cent focus to that important part of each child's life, making sure that they reach their full potential. I am extremely grateful, as I know the Minister for Economic Development is, to his 2 Assistant Ministers for the sterling work that they have been putting in in their respective areas that they are responsible for. It means that Economic Development will become the Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and those functions I think work incredibly well together. The individuals delivering on those delegated responsibilities have shown great enthusiasm, they have hit the ground running and I think that they are showing what improved focus - which is what we wanted - can deliver in those particular areas. Of course that means that we are able to create a function with the Chief Minister's Department which these Regulations also do, bringing together financial services, digital innovation, competition, focusing on those critical synergies, delivering economic growth through our economy. Again, we are seeing great strides taking place in those areas. We have seen the publication of the innovation review and an action plan responding to that, we have seen the competition review and I know that the Assistant Minister there will work together with his Guernsey counterparts to develop an action plan in that regard as well. I hope that these 5 at least are uncontroversial and then we can consider the amendment in due course. I maintain the

Regulations. The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on Regulations 1 to 5? All those in favour of adopting Regulations 1 to 5 kindly show. Those against? The Regulations are adopted. Do you propose Regulation 6?

2. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I do. This Regulation 6 deals with the transfers from the Treasury Department to what is now known as Transport and Technical Services. There we have in the current situation a divergence of responsibility for infrastructure in our community and no doubt we are going to come on and consider what the advisers to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel said about models for infrastructure across various communities and that probably will be the thrust of the debate around the amendment. But I and Ministers believe that there are great synergies to be delivered from that centralised position of putting those infrastructure items together under one political responsibility with one set of experts helping to ensure that reform and synergy is delivered and therefore I maintain that Regulation as well.

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded]

3. Draft States of Jersey(Transfer of Functions No. 8) (Miscellaneous Transfers) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.46/2015): second amendment (P.46/2015)

The Bailiff :

There is an amendment lodged by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Page 16, Regulation 6 – for paragraph (2) substitute – "(2) However, the functions of the Minister for Treasury and Resources in standing order 168 of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey are not transferred."

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

I will run through a little bit of background as to how we got here first and then also give some details on the advisers that we used. Hopefully Members will recall this proposition came, as we have heard, from the desire of the Chief Minister to make certain changes to the ministerial structure. We had obviously planned and hoped to look at it at the very beginning of the year, but we only received the information in May, when it was lodged, and that got wrapped up with other reviews, including the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan), you name it, and of course the M.T.F.P. was slightly delayed. We considered various aspects of the proposal changes and ultimately for Corporate Services we focused on Treasury and Fisheries, as it was turning out, and Economic Development, the economic affairs side, considered some other areas, and comments - as Members should have spotted - have been produced by both panels. Now, the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel appointed a firm of advisers called Concerto to look at the property aspect. This is worth, the property side, £1 billion, £1.2 billion, and therefore it is important, in our view, that the structure surrounding the property is correct. Concerto are specialist advisers in this area. They have advised many organisations on property, including Direct Line Group, the Olympics and Royal Mail, to name but 3. The team has worked in varying capacities for the U.K. (United Kingdom) Government for a number of years, as well as other jurisdictions. One of the lead members that we used has looked at jobs ranging from the Hague to the U.N. (United Nations) and is an accredited high-risk review team leader with the U.K. Cabinet Office. For example, one project for the Ministry of Justice was abandoned following a red review due to the challenges that review identified. Another team member was the former Head of Strategy for the Government Property Unit of the U.K. Government. The point about all this is, in short, this team is very experienced and they know what good should look like. The review was predominantly advice- driven. In order to keep costs under control in this instance, we agreed to receive their evidence in the form of a presentation, which was transcribed and is on our website, rather than a formal report. We then produced our own report. We followed up with a conference call and further drilled down into some of the matters identified from the transcribed session. That is what has formulated our views, in conjunction with the various pieces of work we did. The outcome of the work is this amendment. Why is that important and what are we trying to achieve? In the context that we are dealing with, it is about an overall structure governing £1.2 billion of property for which we are the custodians on behalf of the public. We need to ensure that right level of checks and balances are in place to ensure that strategic direction is clear, with appropriate governance. The other matter that makes it so important is that property is one of the key enablers for reform, it is the key to unlocking changes within the system and we will need to be happy that this will be properly achieved. We also want to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions and to try not to make their same mistakes. What did we all find? Firstly, there is no business case whatsoever behind these moves. To quote from the adviser: "To me, looking at this from the outside, it seemed like a done deal and nobody stopped to question it. That is what it feels like. I do not know your due process here and maybe this is the way things work. I do not know, but it seems odd to me that something as profound as this, the nation's assets, are in J.P.H. (Jersey Property Holdings), or much of the assets are in J.P.H., and to move that into another configuration without any appraisal seems

strange." Elsewhere in the transcript: "I would say the governance looks unusually relaxed in this situation. As I said, it seemed to happen quite fast with no appraisal and to me the Civil Service seem to assume this is going to happen and therefore there has not been any sort of official challenge to it or official analysis of it. That is the strong impression we get." When asked would that be a concern, he said: "Yes. Again, I do not know your culture and processes here, but to me, landing from the outside world, it caught our attention." Why is that important? Is this not just a political decision? It is all about organisational culture, merging different departmental cultures at a time of anyway significant change, it is about achieving proper structural reform and savings and it is about custodianship of over £1 billion of public assets and about having a sustainable structure going forward. It should not be about individuals in any shape or form. It is about whether a proposed change is for the long-term good of the Island. So do not get us wrong. Part of the move is perfectly logical, and referring to that, namely it makes perfect sense for such matters as maintenance and also project management to go across to T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services). That is the pure operational roles and there look to be synergies that can be achieved there, no question. However, it is the strategic decision-making that in both our view and the view of our advisers should stay in Treasury and our amendment seeks to achieve that. Now, the strict interpretation of our amendment is that Treasury will retain the final sign-off for certain types of property transactions such as additions or disposals. However, it is our assumption that under that structure we would need what they call an intelligent plan function that continues to sit in Treasury rather being transferred to T.T.S. We are not talking many people from Property Holdings, so the majority of the department would still be transferred, it would still meet their expectations, but keeping the strategic direction of Treasury closer to the centre does make sense. But you can apply the narrow interpretation if Members prefer, that is basically why the amendment is there, that ultimately the actual how that is achieved, how the strategic direction and the oversight is achieved we have left to the Council of Ministers, if you like. We are just saying Treasury retain an element of the functions. Property is an enabler of reform and that is being driven from the centre. It does

not make sense to scatter one of the key enablers to public sector reform across a further Ministry. At the moment, if this amendment was not in place, property would be entirely in T.T.S., to be named the Infrastructure Ministry; procurement would still sit in Treasury; H.R. (human resources) and I.S. (information services), computer services, if you like, would be in the Chief Minister's Department. If you are focusing on reform, that is not a good structure.

[10:00]

To confirm that, our advisers said: "No, that is not a good suggestion. If you are trying to transform the whole machinery of government, having it split up like that does not really help that cause." As I said, this is a team that knows what good looks like. We are also trying to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. The example that is relevant here is the Isle of Man. They initially went down the route being proposed in the main proposition. However, they then backtracked, it did not work for them, and so they have ended up with the model that we are proposing here. The role of strategic asset planning remains within Treasury and the operational functions such as maintenance go to T.T.S. Really what we are saying is let us learn from other people's experiences, let us not go directly down the lines, because experience shows that there is a better way relevant to an island jurisdiction. Public sector reform is critical and one of the enablers is having an energised property function. I am going to quote from the adviser a couple of times, because it gives a flavour of where it is coming from. The team leader said: "I would say there is not a joined-up transition plan for this proposed transfer and I also think there is a very low transformation energy about it, and in that sense there is a trick being missed, because there is not enough momentum behind it to create a big impact. There could be a big impact out of this change, whereas actually it is very much bringing together 2 departments in a kind of business as usual arrangement and there is a transformational opportunity passing by, so I think that is disappointing." Similarly: "I am worried about regeneration. I do not think that it is the focus yet or in people's minds enough and this is a trick being missed on the public sector reform programme, in other words, that this is going ahead and some of the benefits are at risk because of the approach being taken and I think the firmer approach and more transformational energy would yield more benefits if the approach is to be followed through. It is too low key. Some disbenefits from the transfer: I think being remote from Treasury does bring a few disbenefits, because potentially there is a slightly weaker link between basically the money and the strategic planning process. I think there is something in J.P.H. about being a custodian of the people's assets, the way J.P.H. was set up" - and J.P.H. is obviously Jersey Property Holdings - "and so having an independent stance alongside Treasury is just stronger to protect the original intention of J.P.H. Putting it into one of the departments I think needs to be thought about and I am not sure it has been thought about very much." So those are the words of the advisers and hopefully those are in the transcript: "Just standing back from matters fractionally, we heard recently the Constable of St. Peter has been given certain delegated functions, and of course he too has prior experience of Property Holdings as well as other private sector experience, which is all very relevant and very useful. However, he has also been given delegated responsibility for both the States of Jersey Development Company and Andium, both of which represent significant property functions, therefore it makes little sense to leave strategic responsibility for the property functions in the underlying companies within Treasury while removing the strategic direction for the main property to another department. So what is referred to as an intelligent client, i.e. one or 2 individuals with extensive property experience, should be retained in Treasury so that you achieve, in our view .. so that you can achieve the property synergies that we need. That is different from operational decisions. £1.2 billion of assets is too important just to leave to a political decision because it seems like a good idea. As I have said previously, the public expect better. Now, we have looked at the .. well, I have looked at the comments on this amendment, and in fact I think we probably would agree with quite a lot. They state that it is important that this Minister has the appropriate operational powers: absolutely agree. That is different to strategic direction, which includes assessing what assets should be acquired and which assets should be disposed of. The very last line states: This amendment is unnecessary and would stand in the way of realising potential operational improvements.' Well, actually, no. We are saying keep strategy in Treasury, in the centre, allow operational matters such as maintenance to go to T.T.S. and I think the Minister has rather missed the point there." To quote the adviser again: "There is a lack of focus on benefits and the benefits should be driving the behaviours and the activities. The Property Holdings folk would have a longer perspective and not the same perspective. This is the difference in cultures necessarily and that would be a role to keep behind." When asked the question by a panel member: "Do you think the Department of Infrastructure, as it will become known, is going to be able to deliver any meaningful public sector reform in that area?" The response was: "It could, but not from what we saw." When asked: "If the transfer takes place without that vision and planning being in place, potentially you lose that opportunity?" Answer: "You do. It is a wake-up call now." That is what we are asking the Assembly to do, to wake up and get the right decision in place. If you want proper meaningful public sector reform, then this is not really the right way to go about it. We need to learn from the Isle of Man, therefore for a sustainable structure, but the operational matters such as maintenance, project management, et cetera, into T.T.S., we support that. But support this amendment, please, because it keeps the strategic functions in Treasury, it keeps that link to the centre. It is £1.2 billion, it is not a small number. It is important it is properly dealt with, it is important we put sustainable measures in place rather than potentially having a new structure in 2½ years' time because the Minister changes or something like that. As I have previously said, the public do expect better and I think they deserve better and I think they are getting to the point they are demanding better. This is about long-term sustainable thinking, not

The Bailiff :

Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Deputy Noel.

2. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I am disappointed that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has decided to bring this amendment. I believe joining all of Jersey Property Holdings with Transport and Technical Services is the right way to go and so did the majority of this Assembly when it was debated a few weeks ago. The panel seems to have 3 main reasons for bringing this amendment and I will address each one in turn. Firstly, the lack of business case. The panel was concerned that the decision was political rather than best for Government. This decision is political and it is best for Government. We have the full support of both the Chief Office of T.T.S. and the Director of Estates for J.P.H. They both believe that there would be considerable advantages and that savings can be made by bringing all of the 2 departments together. They have M.T.F.P. targets to meet and they see this as an opportunity, an opportunity for making savings without significant impact on services, as well as improving working systems and benefiting from a better matching of skills. I am sure that Members will be aware that T.T.S. was reviewing all of the services it undertakes in order to achieve its M.T.F.P. saving targets and our plan has always been for J.P.H. to be part of that review programme. This will be broadened and the options will change. These reviews will delve into the detail and will lead to the implementation plan to be developed. The case for joining together is a strong one. The immediate implementation plan is a straightforward one. The review will take some time and will be thorough and will certainly fulfil the recommendations made by the panel's advisers. Secondly, public sector reform. The panel thinks opportunities for reform would be missed. I think probably I have covered this in my previous reassurances, but a thorough review will be undertaken and is happening through T.T.S. All of the appropriate options will be looked at. The panel and their advisers are quite correct in the assertions that there is not an end vision in place and that is because we are open to whatever options the review turns up, just as in Lean methodology, not jumping to the solution before all of the review is systematically undertaken. So rather than missing an opportunity for reform, we will be making the most of this catalyst for change. Thirdly, follow the Isle of Man strategy. The prospect of joining together the 2 organisations was discussed before I became Minister for Transport and Technical Service. I first spoke publicly about it more fully in my election speech for the post of Minister. I am probably in a unique position of seeing first-hand how these 2 entities operate both independently and together. Therefore it is obvious to me how beneficial this amalgamation could be and will be in providing the services for other States departments and indeed Islanders as a whole. I do not believe that these benefits would only be effective with me as the Minister. I have no concerns that there would be any issues at the end of my term of office. It is my understanding that both Concerto and the Scrutiny Panel did not encounter anything but support for the move for the 2 organisations, so there is no reason to think that an integrated department would not be reorganised and stable well before the May 2018 elections and thus fulfilling the criteria suggested by Concerto. Now, having dealt with the 3 main cited reasons in the panel's comments, I turn to their conclusion on page 3 and I invite Members to read it now. Members will see that it basically reiterates and summarises the previously mentioned 3 main reasons for the objections, but what does it not conclude? I am sure Members will have spotted this as well: there is no argument, reason or conclusion for splitting the functions currently undertaken by J.P.H. The panel is asking you to take on board the findings of its eminently qualified advisers. However, I cannot see any evidence documented within the comments to say that Concerto advised the panel that transferring only some of J.P.H.'s functions would be the best course of action. In fact, I am surprised that Concerto was not asked to produce a written report,

instead of just giving verbal feedback in a panel meeting and only having interviewed a relatively small number of individuals, which strangely enough excluded both the Chief Minister and myself. Perhaps a written report would have contained more recommendations. Indeed, I could only find one Concerto recommendation labelled as such and I will quote it: "Doing a business case may be just too late, but the finding of the new end state and developing a purposeful transformation approach to the transaction would be my recommendation at this stage." As I have already said, this is exactly what we are planning to do in the detailed review process. But let me remind Members of the reasons for the transfer. At a high level, it brings together 2 organisations which deal with infrastructure assets in public ownership. In managing these assets, they undertake many of the same or similar tasks. Both organisations have responsibility for land and physical assets, structures and buildings; they both undertake asset management, facilities management and maintenance functions; both organisations manage roads, sewers, rock faces and other structures; both organisations have staff with common skillsets for managing these assets, particularly in terms of project management, maintenance procurement, design work and surveying. J.P.H. is one of T.T.S.'s biggest customers. Removing the transactional administration between these 2 departments is a key step to streamlining services. T.T.S. and J.P.H. often work together on projects such as stabilising the rock face at Grève de Lecq. As 2 organisations, there has certainly been an element of duplication of effort. This could be eliminated by combining all of the 2 departments. The panel have acknowledged the potential for cost savings and synergies of transferring the maintenance and property portfolio. However, they believe that the strategic direction should stay with Treasury and Resources. They believe that this will happen by retaining the functions in Standing Order 168. Members, this order relates to transactions, not strategy. Strategy and policy matters relating to property, as well as other matters of Government, are discussed at a political level in appropriate meetings, be they the Council of Ministers, ministerial or political oversight groups, specific groups such as the Regeneration Steering Group and in one- off meetings as and when required. These policy and strategic decisions are then reflected in corporate documentation such as the Strategic Plan, the M.T.F.P. and other policy documents. The matters currently delegated to the Minister for Treasury and Resources relate to operational decisions which could - and arguably should in some cases - be further delegated to officers. The

requirement to notify the States of those items in (1)(a) of Standing Order 168 will remain. The only change is that the notification will come from the Minister for Infrastructure and not the

Minister for Treasury and Resources. Members would not expect to refer, for example, an operational decision about an I.T. system to the Minister for Treasury and Resources if the budget for that project sat with the Chief Minister's Department, so why would a property transaction be any different? The proposal to retain Standing Order 168 with the Minister for Treasury and Resources does not achieve the intention of the Scrutiny Panel's report, it is not strategy. I would argue, however, that the intention of the amendment is further misguided and inconsistent. If it is desirable to attain the strategic control over property matters within the remit of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, then why not include decisions over other key infrastructure assets such as the sewage treatment works, the Energy from Waste plant, and other key infrastructure assets? The answer is that the intelligent client expertise lies within the current T.T.S. Department, and it will be joined by the intelligent client expertise from the property matters within the new Ministry.

[10:15]

Together these teams will provide a stronger platform to deliver to a greater depth of knowledge. I would just like to finish, if I may, with my own quotes from Concerto. The first is: "Shaking up the model and changing the way J.P.H. interacts with departments could bring real benefit", and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The second is from one of the partners of Concerto: "I think there would be a high impact if this was to be stopped now." I urge Members to reject this amendment.

3. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

I will be supporting this amendment and I hope Members will support the amendment also. I was quite shocked to see there was not a business case or feasibility study carried out on this move and I am shocked again that, given that Scrutiny is an objective evidence-based process which aims to help Ministers with things like this, that this amendment, which is a helpful amendment, has not been accepted. So I do hope that Members will support the Scrutiny process and vote for this amendment. I did have one concern, and I hope this is the right place to say it, and it was on the sports properties, the sports centres, and it was a section in the comments from the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel about a memorandum of understanding which should be in existence to ensure that head teachers would retain control over facilities at sports centres. The chairman informs me that, even though he did not have that at the time of writing the report, he had seen a draft. I wonder if one of the Ministers could just elaborate on that for me, please; is that in place? I would just like some reassurance that there is an intention to keep the sports facilities in the control of the head teachers and that, wherever the assets end up, they are not going to be sold off or placed in another body. There is something wrong with my microphone. That was all I had to say, thank you.

4. Connétable S.W. Pallett of St. Brelade :

Just briefly to respond to Deputy Doublet . In regards to a memorandum of understanding; yes, they are just about to sign. I have had emails recently to say there are just some very minor details around timings in terms of 10 minutes here and 15 minutes there, but generally the memorandum of understanding has been agreed with Hautlieu, J.C.G. (Jersey College for Girls) and Haute Vallée and is due to be signed very shortly and they are happy with the terms.

5. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

I was somewhat disappointed with the speech of Minister for Transport and Technical Services because I was hoping that he would stand up and say: "As we have been more or less merged for the last 12 months, we have already made X amount of savings", but he did not. We are, as a Scrutiny Panel, in full support of the transfer of the functions of Property Holdings to T.T.S. What we are strongly opposing is the transfer of assets - in other words the property - to T.T.S. If you wanted accountancy talk: you do not transfer your assets from the balance sheet to the trading account. I have been thinking long and hard, and I hope you will bear with me, but it is best illustrated in a brief story, and it is most relevant. A wealthy man with a big manor house, 500 acres of land, a couple of cottages, pulls in his foreman and says: "I am going away on holiday and I want you to look after the estate." That is transferring the function from the owner to, as it were, the service provider. He goes off on holiday for 10 years: he swims the length of the Amazon, he walks across the United States, he climbs Mount Everest and, while he is away, the foreman looks at the estate and thinks: "I will tidy this place up" and he tarmacs the driveway, one-mile-long driveway all the way down to the big manor house. He then gets the bill and he thinks: "Oh dear. I know, I will sell one of the cottages in the village." So he sells the cottage in the village. A couple of years later the farm across the river, which is accessed through a ford .. flooding, which is quite common these days, took place and the tanker lorry could not get there to collect the milk for 3 days. The farmer complained so he thought: "Right, we will build a bridge." He builds this magnificent bridge over the stream. How does he pay for it: "Oh, I know, there are 50 acres across the motorway which does not really go with the estate; we will sell that 50 acres." Then the farmer complains that the tanker gets its wheels muddy when it comes to collect the milk and, because of the increasing hygiene standards: "No worries" he says: "we will tarmac the rear driveway" so they tarmac the rear driveway and: "Oh dear, how are we going to pay for that? Well, there are another 50 acres over there; we will sell that." After 10 years the owner of the estate returns and his magnificent estate of 500 acres, which was worth £10 million, is now only 300 acres, no cottages

and a lovely manor house and some beautiful driveways, and his asset is only worth £6 million now because he has lost the control of the asset. You never ever, ever, under any circumstances transfer your asset from the balance sheet to the trading account, because that is what happens. We have heard the Minister for Treasury and Resources repeatedly stand up and say: "We have got a triple A (AAA) standard. We have got a strong balance sheet." Well, if you continue down this path .. it is a double A (AA), is it? Oh, it has already gone down. [Laughter] I did not know my speech was that long. There you have it; I do not think I need to say any more: if you want the strength of the balance sheet, if you want these strong ratings, it is vital that just the asset remains within Treasury. All the functions, painting and decorating, yes, give that to T.T.S.; there are synergies, there are savings and that should be done. Thank you.

6. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am pleased to follow again the Connétable of St. John because it seems to me that his panel chairman was suggesting that there were greater synergies and efficiencies to be delivered from property, and that was why he or the panel decided they did not want to transfer ultimately the strategic bit of property to Transport and Technical Services, and yet the panel member suggests that we do not want to transfer them because there might be too many efficiencies delivered and there might be too much strategy applied to property. But the fundamental point that I disagree with the Constable on is that in his amusing story, and perhaps I will just use this point to say that an island non-sovereign state like Jersey cannot get a higher credit rating than double A plus (AA+) and we just need to be clear about that. That is simply because we are not a sovereign state and therefore we have the highest rating possible, but we do not take it for granted, and I have spoken about that in this Assembly previously. But the flaw in the Constable's amusing story is that, in our case, the Lord of the Manor is this Assembly, not the Minister. That is through the Standing Order or the 168 provision that the Minister has to lay before this Assembly and the Assembly can decide that it does not want to use property in that way. Why do I say that? Because I think we can reel- off many occasions when the Assembly has just done exactly that. We can look across the Royal Square and we see a building .. I am not sure if it was this Assembly or the previous Assembly that made the decision, and that was a democratic decision, and the Ministry is trying to find a solution and act on what the Assembly has asked. We can look further afield and see the Le Seelleur Centre where this Assembly, on at least 2 occasions, has overridden what a Minister or a president thought was a good idea and the Assembly has said it is not, and we have slowly seen that site lose value and fall continually into rack and ruin. The chairman also of the panel has himself, I know, written to the Minister and the Minister has stopped doing something because of the intervention of that other Member. So it is not the Minister that is the Lord of the Manor, it is this Assembly, and that is right. Proposals for the use of property infrastructure are, if my memory serves me correctly, part of a budget proposal and will be every year, and the Assembly gets to agree on the strategy that the Minister is proposing. We did have a model that the panel would like to see, and we have it operating between Property Holdings and the Housing Department. I think the chairman himself knows that that model did not work that well; it was a model for delay, prevarication and for second-guessing, and for needing 2 lots of resource to make the same strategic decisions. I am not sure that is an appropriate model. I do not want to tread over the old ground of when Scrutiny did or did not get the actual regulations and who knew what and when, because I do not think that is a good use of anyone's time; I  think  it  is  more  important to think about the decision and the amendment before us today. We read the Concerto Hansard of the panel's briefing with them and I read it and perhaps this picks up on the point that Deputy Vallois made yesterday about Ministers quoting the bits of reports that fit in with their story and others who want a different outcome quote only carefully from the report as well. But that report says that there is no right or wrong way; they looked around the world and they did quote the Isle of Man model which, as I understand it, is somewhat similar to what is being proposed here, but they equally suggested that it was not necessarily a perfect model and that there were other better ones. I think they quoted the Ireland model, which was a more centralised model, which is the one that we are proposing. I think that everyone in this Assembly accepts that we have had property plan after property plan. We have wanted to make changes, it has been the Holy Grail and yet it has not been delivered on with the model that we have currently got. Again, we can go over old ground and we can ask ourselves why that is and who is to blame, but that will not deal with the transformation that we need in our property service provision. Members know that we have been working on an office modernisation plan, they know that that is part of the reform programme and it is part of the political oversight group that looks at that and, as part of that, it is thinking about property strategically. Those Ministers involved in supporting the Minister for Infrastructure I think can deliver a joined-up strategy that will deliver action in support of the work that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services is absolutely determined to deliver.

[10:30]

There was a criticism from Concerto and that was that the model that is being proposed is seen elsewhere in the world, does and can work well where people are held properly to account for the space that they occupy and that they occupy that space efficiently. That when they are finished with the use of a building, and we heard this from Senator Green earlier, it is rightly handed back to the centre to be thought about in a strategic way, not just simply being used for decanting facilities somewhere else therefore never delivering the efficiency that was initially thought as part of the project. We cannot go on like that; Deputy Noel knows we cannot go on like that and he is committed to dealing with property in a proper strategic manner. But we do not want to have to duplicate functions in the Civil Service to do that thus increasing cost, thus increasing red tape and leaving us in a similar position where nothing happens for another 10 years or so. So Concerto said it is a model that works, that they see working elsewhere, but they said something about lacking transformational energy and opportunity. I think the chairman in his opening remarks moving this proposition spoke about that. He is right, but let me say that the Minister for Transport and Technical Services and Infrastructure has started a whole host of reviews in how he can modernise the service provision that he is delivering. We have just heard him say, and he is right to say, that Property Holdings and the whole of property infrastructure will be part of that, but he did not want to go off doing all those things prior to this Assembly agreeing these proposals. So I am not sure that the chairman really can have it both ways. It was apparent from some of the comments in the report that Concerto did not quite fully understand how our system of independent politics and how a Chief Minister is elected. If he wishes to transfer portfolios around, he has basically 10 days to make the decisions, to speak to Ministers to get them to agree to it and to put forward their nominations to this Assembly in the knowledge of what those changes were going to be. Not the sufficient time, as Concerto seems to suggest, that a business case and business plan should be delivered. They did not say just because it was a political decision it was not a good one; they

talked about a process that might be undertaken elsewhere. They used a very strange phrase, I have got to admit, something about civil servants taking control. Anyway, there were are. I would have thought that it should be for politicians and Ministers to set policy for decisions to be made in this Assembly and for us to be committed to delivering the reform and the efficiencies that we want to deliver. I think, on balance, the experts do not say: "Let us not use this model." They say: "It is a perfectly legitimate model, it can work." Those that they interviewed were committed to making it work, to seeing that transformation. They - and I am not sure if it is a parliamentary term so I will not say that - perhaps needed a little bit of encouragement to make sure that they were enthused to deliver the transformation that properly dealing and managing with over £1 billion worth of property portfolio should appropriately have applied to it. It is for those reasons that I do not want to duplicate; I do believe that the current proposal that is on the table is the right one and it will start to see those efficiencies and synergies delivered. This Assembly will have the ultimate control about whether they feel down the road is sold on paying for a tarmacking of the Grande Route de St. Jean or not, and that is as it should be. This is about putting these assets together and really starting to deliver in a way that each one of us thinks should have been delivered on for many tens of years. I ask that Members do not support the amendment but continue to see those synergies and efficiencies delivered in a way that the Concerto experts say can be delivered and are delivered elsewhere in other countries and jurisdictions around the world.

7. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

I am in a very difficult place again this morning. I arrived here certainly clear in my own mind what I was going to be doing on this particular item, and I have to say to the chairman of the Corporate Services Panel that, unfortunately, his speech just made me reflect more on what my decision should or should not be. I thank him for the very complimentary words he spoke about my role in Property Holdings and in property matters generally, but it was those words in themselves that made me reconsider what I should be doing because he was looking at me as an individual in this role rather than as a function of what is going on. I have to say, and I will say it openly to the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, I do have concerns about the whole property portfolio going over there, but is it not the right thing to do anyway? We have already gone through looking at the principles, and we supported the principles, but I come back to the personalities again, and I think to myself, if I go along with the chairman's views and the Corporate Services Panel, then all this could potentially flow back to me in Treasury. But I am not going to be there for ever and, when I go at the end of this term, who is going to take that over? Are we going to be saying: "Oh, he is a good guy so let us move all that portfolio over to him and let him take it somewhere else because he is a good guy"? I do not think we should be personalising. I have to admit that some of my views earlier on were about the person rather than the role and, on that basis, I am having to really reconsider my thoughts when I arrived here this morning. But I also say to the chair, to the Members here, we all have control over our property in the States and we have exercised it. The Chief Minister alluded to particularly Piquet House, just across the Square, only recently; 1 Library Place was another one, and the sale of the portfolio as well. Just thinking of another one, the old Ladies College in Mont Pinel; that was another massive one about which this Assembly changed the decisions of Ministers. So Members may be concerned about the Minister for Transport and Technical Services or the Minister for Infrastructure having far too many powers; they have, but only with our permission. At the end of the day, we will permit him or deny him the opportunity to do what he does. But I am not going to criticise Corporate Services for coming forward with this; they are right to raise these concerns which I held this morning, or some of these concerns which I held this morning, and it is right to bring them forward for us to debate them here today. But I think I have to say to myself: "I should not be personalising my opinions in order to come to a conclusion which affects the whole portfolio of Jersey." I have to look where it sits correctly within a wider T.T.S. Ministry, where it brings both the engineers and the expertise sitting behind the engineers together to make sure that we manage our property portfolio together. So unfortunately I am going to have to say to Corporate Services, as much as I leaned favourably towards their amendment earlier on today, I have to now lean away from it

because I am basing my decisions on personality rather than on the role.

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

What a confusing day it is. Personality and personal decisions have got nothing to do with this, surely, and if we are making personal decisions we are getting it wrong. It seems to me that is a totally specious point. I get to my feet to point out to Members, and it may come as a shock to some, that Ministers are not the fount of all knowledge. What do we rely on Scrutiny for? Well, I know nothing about Property Services, I know an awful lot about Social Security and I am learning a bit about the Health Service, but I do not know anything about Property Services and where it should belong. So what do I do? As a Member of this House, I rely on the Scrutiny function to examine that and enlighten me and, lo and behold, it has. It has not done it lightly; it has got some advice in and said: "What is the appropriate way forward? We are not sure about this, talk to us about it. How is this best handled? How is it handled elsewhere?" That is exactly what a Scrutiny Panel should be doing. Lo and behold, it comes with advice that: "We think the Minister may have this slightly wrong. We would like to adjust it in this way." I would urge Members, unless you are personally involved and you know the ins and outs and details of Property Services and what should be where, political oversight, et cetera, to listen to your Scrutiny chairman and vote with him, back up Scrutiny; that is their job. Their job is to hold Ministers to account and to point out, when it occasionally happens, where they think the Minister is going wrong. So back up your Scrutiny chairman, back up the Scrutiny Panel, vote for this amendment.

9. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Chief Minister rightly raised the interesting and important question about who runs this Island, and Deputy Southern alluded to it too. The fact is that Ministers have to make decisions but they have to make decisions, if they are doing their job properly, upon advice from officials. The proposition effectively asks, and the consequences of this means, that there is going to be the inevitability of a duplication of that function of advice. Because what the proposition does is it attempts to almost put the responsibilities for property in 2 places and to have 2 levels of decision making. It is right, of course, that there are checks and balances, and there are all sorts of checks and balances, which is the reason why the Council of Ministers in the States of Jersey Law, now with collective responsibility, has an obligation on a Minister that, where a matter is one which affects more than one Minister, it must be brought to the Council of Ministers for discussion and a determination. That is an important check and balance. If there is going to be this dual property function sitting partly in T.T.S. and partly in Treasury, you are inevitably going to get more cost. Now, I thought that Corporate Services were the vanguard, were the cheerleaders, were the encouragers, were the critics of anything that added additional costs. We need to streamline, we need to put the right responsibilities in the right places with the right accountabilities. There have been 3 previous Assistant Ministers for Treasury and Resources who have spoken in this debate, and how right the Connétable of St. Peter was to say that this is not about personalities. I have had each one of those Assistant Ministers as part of the Treasury family. If I may say, did it work? Can we say that we have efficiency and economy and fast decision making and a champion of property in the right place? I see another former Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources shaking her head. No, I did not think we did. I do not think, if I may say, that had anything to do with the personalities because each of the personalities have tried certainly their best; in some cases they had a Minister above them which caused a difficulty in relation to a police station, because there was a lack of good communication not at the Assistant Minister level but in other places. I have a joy when I drive through the tunnel and I see the new Home Affairs police station now rising out of the ground on an unused site. Efficiency and economy; I think the new police station is going to be a good example. That may be controversial but, if I may say, how long did it take? That is no criticism of anybody, but are we facing a good track record of looking after our public assets and property? No, I do not think we do. Is that because of the personalities? Yes, I get into trouble when I mention these things and I raise hackles, but whether or not you think the police station is or is not in the right place, did it really matter that it took so long to find a resolution for it? I would say that is the source of the difficulties. That all those Assistant Ministers for Property had, and the other Ministers who have faced the difficulties that Ministers for Home Affairs have faced and other Ministers have faced, in having not fit-for-purpose accommodation; and indeed on the other side, departments hoarding property ineffectively and not using it efficiently. The reason is a structural problem, and that is the structural problem which the Chief Minister is trying to sort out; and that is that there is a champion, a single decision maker with Property and that is linked in with the responsibility for the Minister for Infrastructure.

[10:45]

That is efficient and the right thing to do. It is a massively important role. But it is not a role that can be second-guessed also, having double decision making. We had in the previous proposition something, I wondered whether or not it was the Minister for Treasury and Resources or the Minister for Social Security speaking, because the previous proposition was about a link between I.T.I.S. I.T.I.S. collected - the L.T.C. charge - is collected by Treasury working with the Minister for Social Security. The Minister for Social Security is in charge of Social Security matters, and if I may say, any Minister for Treasury and Resources that tries to interfere with the ring fence of the Social Security Fund will get from all those all those previous Ministers for Social Security appropriate response. But there is a champion for Social Security matters and that is the Minister for Social Security. We have lacked a champion who is dedicated in terms of property, and the Island residents and our community look with amazement at our ability not to use property efficiently and effectively; property that means that we operate in offices which are not fit for purpose. The chairman of Corporate Services rightly says about office organisation. He is absolutely right about that. But today do we have a plan to deliver an office modernisation in terms of putting our staff in efficient and effective ergonomic accommodation? No, we do not. It is a structural problem that has led to this completely and apparently ineffective ability to deal with decision making. It is the right decision. We need to take personalities out of it. It is easy to criticise the personality. But we need to deal with the structural issue. The property is an important issue which should be put alongside the other infrastructure responsibilities in T.T.S. That is where it is going to be efficiently done; it is going to be effectively done and we are going to put the right decision in the right place. To correct this double layer of responsibility will mean effectively that the Treasury is in the same position it has been in since Property Holdings was created. Are they in charge or are they not in charge? Are they the one to sign it off? Well, that is not accountable. If the Minister for Infrastructure with these responsibilities is not doing the job properly then he will be held to account. Fudging it and saying: "Well, there is an offset and maybe he is in charge or maybe not and a sign off," that is not good decision making. It is never good decision making; you need a champion, you need structure and you need the right decisions with the right support which is not duplicated. I urge Members not to impose upon these 2 departments. This duplication is inevitable. Further delay in effectively the urgent and important task of reforming our property portfolio, getting value out of it, ensuring that our capital programme can be funded in some way by selling off assets that are not needed. Also for our staff across the whole of the public sector to ensure that they have the right accommodation in order to perform their jobs and duties in the right

way and infrastructure. The Corporate Services chairman is right: we need urgently to deal with the right accommodation for the departments in which we serve. Have we got that today? We have not, because the structure is wrong and this proposition seeks to deal with that. I urge Members to think about that and to reject the proposition. Hold the Minister to account in terms of delivery on what is one of the most important responsibilities of Government.

10. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

The Chief Minister has suggested that this amendment is confused and the Minister for Transport and Technical Services would have this Assembly believe that the amendment has no real rationale behind bringing it forward for debate. Simply put, under the proposed transfer of function and regulations we are moving an asset to become a liability; a liability in the sense of the maintenance costs, the ongoing management of the building. The moment you do that it is a change of mind-set from a strategic asset which can be used for the benefit of the whole Island to an ongoing liability; a liability on the balance sheet. As we all know, liabilities on balance sheets in the times of cost