States Meeting Transcript - 2nd December 2015

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY..........................3

1. The Minister for Economic Development - statement regarding Small Business Saturday ..................................................................................3

1.1 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development):.......................3

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................3
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................4
3. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier:........................................................4
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................4
5. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................4
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :...................................................................5
7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John:.........................................................5
8. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ....................................................5
9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:........................................................5
10. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:................................................6
11. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................6
12. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................6
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................6
14. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................7
15. Deputy J.A. Martin: ..................................................................7

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................7

2. Jersey Appointments Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.131/2015)......7

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):..................................................7

3. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of profits for 2014 (P.132/2015) ...................8

3.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):..............................................................................8

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:......................................................................8
2. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary:..........................................................9
3. Deputy M.J. Norton:.....................................................................9

4. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of Deputy Chairman (P.133/2015) .10

4.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................10

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................10

2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................10
3. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................11

5. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: reappointment of non-States Commissioner (P.134/2015)..............................................................................11

5.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (Chairman, Jersey Overseas Aid Commission):.......11

6. Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers: open competition (P.137/2015)..........12

Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................12 6.1 The Deputy of St. John:................................................................12 Senator Z.A. Cameron:.......................................................................15 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................15 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................15 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier:........................................................15 The Connétable of St. Clement:..............................................................16 Senator Z.A. Cameron:.......................................................................16

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................17 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................20 Deputy A.D. Lewis :..........................................................................20 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................21 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................21 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................22 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..............................................22 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................22
2. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................23
3. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:...............................................................24
4. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................25
5. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................25
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
7. Senator Z.A. Cameron:.................................................................29
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................29
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................30
10. Deputy A.D. Lewis : .................................................................31
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................32
12. Senator A.K.F. Green:...............................................................32
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................34

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................36

7. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....36

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................36

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
   2. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................38

1. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................38
2. Senator Z.A. Cameron:.................................................................38
3. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................38

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................40

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sure Members will be sorry to hear that the Bailiff who was due to preside this morning is unfortunately indisposed but he has asked me to preside until the Deputy Bailiff becomes free from other duties later this morning. We now return to the Order Paper but before we continue Public Business I did receive notice yesterday from the Minister for Economic Development that he wished to make a brief official statement and if Members agree it may be convenient to do that before we commence.

STATEMENT ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. The Minister for Economic Development - statement regarding Small Business Saturday

1.1 Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development):

I am pleased to be able to announce that thanks to the support and efforts of Jersey Business Limited, Jersey will be participating for the first time in Small Business Saturday. Small Business Saturday is a highly successful global campaign that originated in the United States in 2010 and in the U.K. in 2013 and is focused on encouraging shoppers to patronise bricks-and-mortar businesses that are both small and local. It also aims to encourage consumers to think about small businesses and the benefits of spending money in the local economy. This is important because small businesses account for a significant part of our economy and a vibrant retail sector is especially good for our community. This coming Saturday, 5th December, working from the Jersey Post Office in Broad Street, Jersey Business Limited will profile 20 local businesses enabling them to increase their profile and showcase their goods and services. In today's competitive business environment to succeed small businesses have to continue to innovate, to manage risk, improve productivity and adapt to constant change. In Jersey 80 per cent of all our businesses employ 5 people or less so it is vital that we support this crucial sector and through embracing Small Business Saturday we are able to celebrate the key economic role all small businesses play both individually and collectively. Small business owners do not expect consumers to support them for sentimental reasons alone. They understand that to succeed and win business they must fight for consumer loyalty by offering innovative products and ideas, excellent service and great value. I hope this inaugural year will be the first step in a journey raising not only the profile of the small business economy but will also help drive up the productivity, the aspirations and confidence of small businesses throughout the Island. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the team at Jersey Business, their partners and the media who have worked hard to launch this notwithstanding the extremely busy business schedules they already have. I hope that Members will join me in spreading the word and supporting this important new initiative. [Approbation]

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Any there questions arising from the statement?

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

I hope it is arising from the statement and I do congratulate the Minister and the initiative but my question is and it is in the paragraph: "In Jersey 80 per cent of all businesses employ 5 people or less." Will there be, maybe if not on Saturday but how closely do Jersey Business work with Social Security with the unemployment and the Population Office getting the licences because these are very small businesses? It is all well and good promoting them but to succeed they must have the employees.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

That is a particularly well-timed question because both E.D.D. (Economic Development Department) and Jersey Business are going to be playing a far greater role in working with small businesses and the Housing and Work Advisory Group in which we are represented by Assistant Minister Deputy Norton to help small businesses. So we are going to be urging small businesses to go to Jersey Business as their first port of call when seeking advice on licences for staff.

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

I wonder if the Minister can inform us whether these are the same small businesses who object so strongly whenever we talk about maternity leave and extending the rights of female workers.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

No, I cannot.

3. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

If these small businesses are succeeding in acquiring licences for their operation, what about those small businesses that are not, that are already in existence? How is this all going to balance out with the Population Office?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am not sure how this has turned around to this subject.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, I am going to ask the Deputy how that related to the statement but .. Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Because we have been talking about the success of new businesses being set up. This is what the initiative is, is it not; it is promoting new businesses, S.M.E.s (small and medium-sized enterprises), small businesses?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

No. Small Business Saturday is about raising the profile of small businesses and the importance of spending money in the local economy but I do regrettably have questions without notice on 15th December so I will be pleased to take the question then.

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Maybe in future we will see all press releases being read out as statements in the Assembly. The question I have is, how were the 20 local businesses selected and was there an oversubscription and if there was an oversubscription how was it whittled down to which 20 would be able to showcase on this particular Saturday?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I do not have the exact information to hand as to how they were selected other than that Jersey Business has been working for some time to pull together the businesses and it is hoped that that number will grow and grow as this initiative develops over the years.

5. Deputy M. Tadier :

Supplementary. Will the Minister endeavour to find out? He has given us some detail here and he knows full well that he is going to be facing 10 minutes of questions. He does not seem to have the basic information about how many applicants there were and why there is a figure of 20, whether there could have been more than 20, whether that is due to space limitations or whether in fact there are only 20 small businesses who were willing to appear on that day. Would he be able to find out that information and circulate it to Members after this sitting?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Yes, I will.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern :

In choosing these 20 companies was one of the considerations the terms and conditions under which their employees worked?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think the Minister has already said he does not know the criteria so I am not sure how he can answer your question.

7. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John :

Could the Minister advise how this is different to the Think Local, Buy Local campaign? Senator L.J. Farnham :

I think it is different in a number of ways. I think that the whole sector - the whole small business sector - has moved on since then. The impact of the internet especially on the retail sector is a lot more prominent and set to become more challenging in the years ahead. So this is partnering-up with the global campaign and also it is helping small business owners and their staff to understand that they need to raise their game and make sure they are improving their innovation and productivity and offering excellent service and very good value. So I think it is not about just persuading consumers to shop in the local economy because it is a nice thing to do. It is making businesses more aware of what they have to offer so local consumers want to support the local economy.

8. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

For me the key thing about this announcement is that these small businesses will have a physical presence in St. Helier for this day. My question to the Minister is: reports to me from tourists are that our High Street is becoming evermore just like any High Street in the U.K. What can be done to make sure that small businesses give variety on a permanent basis in the empty shops, in different areas in St. Helier ? Can we make sure that this initiative is spread throughout the year for the benefit of our local economy generally?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

That is an excellent question and that is exactly the plan. In raising the profile of small businesses, especially at this time of year, we hope to make it possible for them to grow and expand and have the confidence to invest in their businesses. It is very important that our town centre especially, but not just the town centre, shopping commercial centres and small villages around the Island in parishes are well populated by thriving small business.

9. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Does the Minister agree that although it is certainly well and good to be promoting small businesses with initiatives like this, would it not have been a better use to do a statement on what is being done to change the rules and regulations, many of which can be out of date or over-bureaucratic which are getting in the way of businesses succeeding? Could instead he offer an update to the Assembly on what is being done in terms of modernising those rules?

[9:45]

Also one area that is not directly in his portfolio, but I am sure he will have a strong view on, is Social Security contributions for the self-employed, which is something the Government is meant to have been getting on with for a very long time, has not happened and which would help many of these small businesses rather than just a bit of promotion.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am not sure most of that falls into my portfolio but I would say most of what the Deputy said is not happening is happening. We are being proactive. I think on the contrary this is a very good, worthy and important statement to make at this time of year about the importance of supporting the local economy and supporting local small business.

10. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour :

Would the Minister agree that all things considered this is good news? Senator L.J. Farnham :

Sorry, I did not understand the point.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is it good news?

Deputy P.D. McLinton:

Is it good news?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

Absolutely it is.

11. Deputy M. Tadier :

Does the Minister have the information about how many of these 20 local businesses are locally owned; i.e. their directors will be paying tax in Jersey?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

No, I do not have that information to hand because this has been set up and established by Jersey Business Limited, a very good and worthy organisation, and I have full confidence in the process they have followed but if the Deputy would like to outline in an email to me the details he wants of these businesses I will endeavour to find the information for him.

12. Deputy M. Tadier :

May I suggest that rather than me sending an email he takes notes or his secretary, who is probably listening outside this Assembly, takes note of the questions that are being asked that he cannot answer at the moment and that she or Jersey Business or he circulate the information required?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I think to be clear. I would like the Deputy to spell out exactly what information he would like to me.

13. Deputy G.P. Southern :

The Minister was just very clear that he was being proactive in modernising regulations around small business. Could he name one of those initiatives that he has already undertaken?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I do not think I said that all. The initiative we are talking about today is Small Business Saturday and I am absolutely delighted that Jersey is part of it.

14. Deputy M. Tadier :

I am sure we can get to the bottom of this. Deputy Mézec did a whole list of things that were not being done, one of them was Social Security contributions, the regulation that small businesses face and are struggling with. The Minister said that Government was doing that so can he confirm exactly which of that list Deputy Mézec outlined he is getting on with?

Senator L.J. Farnham :

With the greatest respect that really is a question for the Minister for Social Security.

15. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, I was not going to ask a last question but I started with this and the Minister assured us they are all working together. The question is: the venue a few Saturdays before Christmas. Has anyone been in the Post Office this week? It is 20 businesses in Broad Street. Maybe I could answer the question because it is going to be very busy and that is why they are putting all these businesses there and I hope that helps the Minister.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I thank the Deputy . Her point is noted but I think the newly refurbished Post Office in Broad Street is a great location because it brings many of these small business representatives into St. Helier. Can I wish the Reform Party a very merry Christmas?

PUBLIC BUSINESS

2. Jersey Appointments Commission: appointment of Commissioner (P.131/2015) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If there are no further questions we will move back to Public Business and the first item is: Jersey Appointments Commission: appointment of Commissioner, and I will asked the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005 to appoint Ms. Gailina Liew as a commissioner of the Jersey Appointments Commission.

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

Hopefully the report is straightforward. I thank the previous incumbent, Mrs. Carnegie, for her work on the commission albeit it was only for a short period of time and I am pleased to propose to the States Mrs. Liew to take over as an Appointments Commissioner and Members will see her impressive C.V. (curriculum vitae) on the back page of the report.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? All those in favour of adopting the proposition kindly show. Against? The proposition is adopted.

3. Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of profits for 2014 (P.132/2015) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Now to the Channel Islands Lottery: allocation of profits for 2014. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to agree, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4(5) of the Gambling Channel Islands Lottery (Jersey) Regulations 1975, that all monies standing to the credit of the Channel Islands Lottery (Jersey) Fund, which have not already been set aside by the Minister, representing 100 per cent of the total Jersey portion of the profits of the Channel Islands Lottery for 2014, should be paid to the Association of Jersey Charities for the benefit of the community and the charitable needs of the Island.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Minister, is this ..

Senator L.J. Farnham :

The Assistant Minister will act as rapporteur for this.

3.1 Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur):

I almost tread in fear of saying this is a straightforward matter for Members given previous ones. As Members will be aware, the responsibility for the Channel Islands Lottery falls to Economic Development. As recent as 2010 the Channel Islands Lottery was in decline and facing an uncertain future. I am delighted that the lottery these days has been rejuvenated for the benefit of Jersey. It continues to go from strength to strength in fact. Improvements to the products have led to increased sales; increased sales have made greater footfall for local retailers; and increased sales have meant higher and better quality prizes with this year's Christmas lottery, as I am sure Members will be aware, already over £1 million. Increased sales also importantly mean increased returns for local good causes and the Public Lotteries Report of 2014 was presented to this Assembly on 16th March. The profit figure from the lottery activity in 2014 was £701,802. That is another record high. If Members approve this proposition today the £701,802 will be transferred to the Association of Jersey Charities. As Members will know the association represents over 300 member charities and allocates the funds from the Channel Islands Lottery on a basis of need. Local support and lottery support is vital for allowing these charities to continue their vital work in our community. I would like to thank Islanders for their continued generosity in supporting the Channel Islands Lottery. I would also like to thank the staff at Economic Development and Treasury and Resources who continue to work hard to develop the lottery and support our local community. I would also like to wish everyone luck in this year's lottery. There are still a few tickets available. I maintain the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Just really a basic question. In the report at the end of the first paragraph it says: "Subject to a new service level agreement." Could the Assistant Minister please inform us when this runs out, where we could view it and if there are any changes from the original?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call on the Assistant Minister to reply. Deputy of St. Mary, just in time.

2. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I simply know that it is now December 2015 and we are talking about transferring the proceeds of the lottery in 2014. May I ask the Assistant Minister to indicate how soon the corresponding transfer is intended to be made next year?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): I call on the Assistant Minister to reply.

3. Deputy M.J. Norton:

Thank you very much for those who have asked questions. With reply to Deputy Martin the S.L.A. (service level agreement) is a standard service level agreement that is exactly the same as last year's. It has no changes whatsoever in it and it is very much the same as last year and, as is always at this time of the year, the proposition that is put forward is subject to the S.L.A. which we do not expect there to be any changes at all. In discussions already with the Association of Jersey Charities, that is already verbally agreed and will be signed, I believe, in the next couple of days. With regard to the other question and the transfer of lottery funds, the profits from 2014 are in their entirety from the whole year and they then are worked out throughout the year. The report is usually within the first quarter of the following year. So the 2015 lottery profits, the report will come out around about March time, March/April time. From that time onwards we will, as it says in the proposition, be working with the Association of Jersey Charities to widen the availability of lottery funds to local communities and we are working with the Association of Jersey Charities on that at this moment and within the first 2 quarters of next year we will be able to bring that to the States for discussion. On from that, as I believe it is always standard, the funds are usually transferred towards the last quarter of the year and I see that not changing going forward.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

All those in favour of [Interruption] .. the appel is called for. I ask Members to return to their seats. The vote is for or against the proposition relating to the Channel Islands Lottery and I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

4. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of Deputy Chairman (P.133/2015) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come now to: States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of Deputy Chairman. I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion, in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Administrative Decisions  (Review) (Jersey)  Law  1982,  to  appoint  Mr.  Christopher  Beirne  as Deputy Chairman of the States of Jersey Complaints Panel for a period of 5 years.

4.1 Connétable  L.  Norman  of  St.  Clement  (Chairman,  Privileges  and  Procedures Committee):

I am very pleased to be able to nominate Mr. Christopher Beirne as one of the 2 deputy chairmen of the Complaints Panel and indeed to thank him for volunteering to take on this role. There is a full report attached to the proposition. So if I can just say that Mr. Beirne has been a member of the panel since 2009 and has proved himself to be an extremely measured, reasonable and fair-minded member of the panel and I am very pleased to make the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Just to second the sentiments expressed by the chair who suggested that he was a very fair-minded man and from experience I agree with that.

2. Deputy M. Tadier :

It is just to draw attention yet again to P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) to the fact that this is being debated in open discussion. It seems to me I could stand up and say that this individual is a jolly good fellow and he certainly seems like it from my experience but conversely I could have all sorts of grudges, rightly or wrongly, against him and that would be aired in public. We know that certain positions that are appointed in this Assembly are done in camera and that seems at best an anomaly that needs to be resolved one way or the other. We have never been given a satisfactory explanation as to why some positions need to be done secretly and others need to be done openly. Certainly for this individual I am quite happy to support that but it is something that needs to be addressed very quickly I would suggest. It has been hanging over us for too long.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any Member wish to speak? I call on the chairman to reply.

3. The Connétable of St. Clement :

Of course it is available to any Member to bring a proposition that strangers be withdrawn, have a debate in camera on any proposition at all. So if the Deputy had wanted to do it in this case he could have made that proposition and the States would have made the decision whether to do so or not. Yes, I do agree with the Deputy , there are some inconsistencies about the laws on how we bring such propositions, some are in camera, some are not, and the P.P.C. is trying very hard to consolidate that so that we have clarity of which ones are and which ones are not and the reasons why that should be the case, but we are having some legal difficulties in getting that addressed but hopefully later on next year we will be able to do that. I maintain the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

All those in favour of adopting the proposition kindly show. Any against? The proposition is adopted.

5. Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: reappointment of non-States Commissioner (P.134/2015)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come now to the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission: reappointment of non-States Commissioner and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to appoint, in accordance with clause 7.4 of the Constitution of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission as set out in schedule 1 to the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission (Jersey) Law 2005, Mr. Peter Le Seelleur as a non-States Commissioner for a further period of 3 years with effect from 6th March 2016.

5.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville (Chairman, Jersey Overseas Aid Commission):

Mr. Peter Le Seelleur has demonstrated during his time as commissioner total commitment to the role. He has participated as a volunteer within J.O.A.C.'s (Jersey Overseas Aid Commission) community work programmes, undertaken monitoring visits to Uganda on the commission's behalf in his own time and also takes unpaid leave to fulfil his obligation to the commission annually during our annual funding rounds, both here and in the U.K.

[10:00]

The commission is also supporting Mr. Le Seelleur's reappointment to address the succession planning. It would enable continuity within the commission and provides a solid handover after the elections. I propose the appointment.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? All those in favour of adopting the proposition kindly show. Any against? The proposition is adopted.

6. Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers: open competition (P.137/2015) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We come now to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers: open competition and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to request the States Employment Board to cancel the extension to the contract of employment of the Chief Executive Officer to the Council of Ministers with effect from 31st December 2015, being the date on which the contract entered into with him in July 2012 will finish, and to further request the States Employment Board to ensure that the recruitment for the post of Chief Executive Officer is subject to open and fair competition and complies with the standards set out within the Jersey Appointments Commission Guidance on Senior Recruitment.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I wonder if before the Deputy moves her proposition; she asked me yesterday in questions without notice whether I was going to ask for the Assembly to go into camera and I am not minded to do so and I know the Deputy understands that the proposition is about process and not the individual although it is difficult in these debates to necessarily separate the 2 because there is only one Chief Executive Officer. I wonder if I could call upon your good offices, until the Deputy Bailiff arrives, to make sure that Members do not stray into areas around the individual and if Members are minded to I wonder if they themselves could ask that the Assembly goes into camera at that point so that we can avoid difficulties in that regards.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is open to any Member, as you have mentioned, Chief Minister, to propose without notice the States go into camera. It is then a matter for the Assembly to decide whether to do that but as the proposition is about an individual officer it seems to me extremely difficult to avoid some reference to an individual officer because the wording is absolutely crystal clear.

6.1 The Deputy of St. John :

It is with disappointment that I bring this proposition to the States Assembly. Members who know me and have worked with me over the last 7 years will know that I do not bring items to this Assembly lightly and will work with whatever tools are available to assist and improve the way in which the Island is run. So why do I bring this proposition? What could possibly be of such importance to ask the States to debate the appointment process of the most senior position of the public sector in Jersey when we have an Independent Appointments Commission? This proposition is fundamentally about the principles of public life which we all sign up to as public representatives namely; objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is crucial to stress the facts and provide an explanation surrounding the history of the role of the Chief Executive. This is set out for Members to consider appropriately and I specifically ask Members to reflect on the

document on their desks entitled "chronology of events" which is a chronology similar to that of appendix 2 of the States Employment Board comments. However, this document includes the items they have chosen not to incorporate in their chronology of events, which is made up of material either already in the public domain or where there is relevant evidence to support them. It is imperative to emphasise that this proposition is about the process that has been chosen to be taken by the last and current States Employment Boards. My concerns initially arose when an appointment process took place for the Chief Executive in July 2012. At that time there were a

number of relatively difficult tensions materialising in the States of Jersey. For example, the resignation of the Jersey Appointments Commission chairman in June, the resignation of the Comptroller and Auditor General in July and then 2 particular reports surrounding the role of compromise agreements in the States of Jersey in March and July of that year. The reason why the 2011 appointment for an acting Chief Executive was not as controversial was due to its handling by the Chief Minister, former Senator Terry Le Sueur . The process was carried out for an appointment of a new Chief Executive in the manner set out under the guidelines of the Jersey Appointments Commission. At the conclusion of the process the interviewees were seen as not suitable for that role. Therefore, an interim appointment was seen appropriate in order to carry out an external appointment under the Council of Ministers, which can be referenced within a written question by the former Deputy of St. Brelade, Deputy Angela Jeune . This can be confirmed from not only a Jersey Evening Post report but also in answer to a written question put through this Assembly. Following questions placed in the States Assembly, which Members can see attached to my proposition, I approached the Jersey Appointments Commission in 2012 specifically requesting an explanation as to why their own guidelines had not been followed. Examples being, the constitution of the interview panel, no advertisement, no search consultants and why this appointment was seen as anything different. A meeting took place between the Chief Minister, the chairman of the Appointments Commission and I, at which time I was advised that this appointment was different. It was a unique position and that because the chairman had been involved in the document-making and set up the full process the chairman felt there was no need for a letter of exception to be written but acknowledged that he could have done so even though the guidelines are explicit in the need for an exception letter should a different process be followed. Subsequently I received a letter from both the Chief Minister and the Jersey Appointments Commission chairman. The letter of the Chief Minister provided the explanation as to why this

process was different, referring to an options appraisal. This suggests an option entitled, slotting- in, which goes on to say the following: "Review and where necessary amend the current job description to best align with the actual current Chief Executive role. Identify a process for slotting-in the current Chief Executive Officer into the new role recognising the appraisal carried out by the previous Chief Minister and recognising that the review of the political governmental system within the States of Jersey is about to commence and only when this work is completed will the role of the future Chief Executive Officer be defined." This quite clearly suggested that the job had changed to keep the current incumbent until after the necessary work was to be carried out on machinery of government. This can also be corroborated with a statement made to the media by the Deputy Chief Minister of the time on 15th August 2012 which goes on to state: "The length of the contract has been agreed to allow time for the Electoral Commission to make recommendations on the structure of the Assembly and for any changes in Government structure to be made. There will then be time for the new Council of Ministers to settle-in and decide on how the future role of Chief Executive should change in response to a new political structure." The Privileges and Procedures Committee of 2012 established a sub-committee to assess the current workings and to produce recommendations to improve weaknesses identified. Reflection was made to the role to the Chief Executive within this review, particularly in the final report that stated: "It may be that the States are minded to grant the Chief Executive more authority over chief officers. Perhaps by stipulating that all chief officers of executive departments be issued with amended contracts to

confirm their reporting line to the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and head of the public service. In such circumstances we would strongly recommend that no such change takes place until any incumbent in the position of Chief Executive has been subject to the full and proper process of appointment as laid down in the guidelines issued by the Jersey Appointments Commission." This can be seen in an extract from the Machinery of Government Review which was R.105/2013. As Members will see from the chronology the relevant legislation for these changes was passed by the States Assembly in May 2014 and July 2015. Members will be erring on the side of caution with regards to debating this proposition and I would suggest to them in normal circumstances I would agree. However, I have nowhere else left to address this and therefore I am left with the only option of bringing this to the States Assembly's attention to hold the Chief Minister to account for not acting on the commitments which he himself made. More importantly, if this proposition had not been lodged Members would have been none the wiser as to the extension of the Chief Executive Officer's appointment as an extension, which is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is my view that the work undertaken by both the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee and the Electoral Commission has been completed. Legislation has been changed and approved by the States Assembly to address most of the inadequacies in the system and everyone should have the confidence that due process has been taken in relation to the key role for delivery in the public sector. Therefore, on the basis of the commitment made by the Chief Minister during the last term of office to the Council of Ministers, the States Employment Board, the public and the States Assembly it is only right and proper that the States Employment Board ensure that the process undertaken for the role of the Chief Executive Officer is in an absolute open and fair manner in accordance with the Appointments Commission guidelines. I

acknowledge and am aware of the parameters set out within the Employment Law and the effects that this can have with regards to a fixed-term contract. The States Employment Board chose to sign the extension on 28th September this year absolutely aware of this proposition and the fact that the current contract was in place until the end of this year. I provided the Chief Minister the opportunity to advise the States Assembly of the intentions of the States Employment Board which failed to materialise. The estimated sum under financial and manpower implications in my report is the maximum amount that was suggested in one of the meetings I attended with the States Employment Board and it is well within the scope of what the former Chief Executive would have been paid if it had not been for the clauses placed within his contract at that time, unless of course there is something that has been included in this particular contract that we may need to be aware of. I believe the States deserve to have confidence in the leadership of the Government especially when the powers of appointment have been passed to them under the auspices of strong governance arrangements. This was the first opportunity to ensure the most senior position of the States of Jersey was appointed in the correct manner under ministerial government and fulfil the commitments undertaken. Yes, we are going through a reform programme but this has been going on for a very long time and it was not something that stopped the former Chief Executive being appointed in 2003 when the States of Jersey underwent the initial significant changes to machinery of government. I would ask that this proposition is given the serious consideration it requires and I look forward to hearing Member's views or questions during the debate.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Senator Z.A. Cameron:

I would like to raise a point of order.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes. A point of order requires a ruling from me, Senator. Can I just confirm when you say "a point of order" it will require a ruling from the Chair? That is a point of order.

Senator Z.A. Cameron:

Yes.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Yes, carry on.

Senator Z.A. Cameron:

I would like to suggest that this debate is held in camera. Yesterday's debate when we broadcast the circumstances a particular individual was uncomfortable. States Members may well have an ongoing working relationship with the Chief Executive after today and will be able to express their opinions as to the appropriateness of his appointment to that process with greater freedom if this is held in camera.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is not quite clear your point of order, Senator, but you are quite rightly exercising your right to propose without notice that the States conduct the debate in camera. Is that proposition seconded? The proposition is not. [Seconded] It is seconded. Does any Member wish to speak on that proposition before it is put to the vote briefly?

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think the point is, while we have sympathy with Senator Cameron's position, I think the case needs to be made that the public interest is stronger for having this in camera because there is a strong presumption that all of these things happen in public, all these kind of debates. There is an accountability issue. I know the Deputy of St. John says she has not brought this lightly and there is a massive amount of public interest in this particular debate, in the whole context of the Deputy of St. John having felt that she had to resign from her position as Minister for Treasury and Resources and this being one of the consequences of that decision. I do not think that is something that we can do in camera. The accountability issues and the arguments need to be made in this Assembly. I think that the individual that we are talking about is quite big enough and grown-up enough to know that there will be robust debate in this Assembly and I think that Members also need to be aware of the fact that they are elected to act with integrity.

[10:15]

I do not think anybody would say anything that does not need to be said during the course of a public debate.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Both the proposer and the Chief Minister have said they do not feel at the moment this needs to go into camera and from experience going into camera lets everybody say what they think they can say in camera and then 3 months down the line it is has been leaked outside. I think not going into camera will keep the focus on the debate. It is about the process not the person and I really urge people not to vote unless they really feel they want .. it is not a personal attack on somebody. It is about the process and there will be some very dirty remarks made in here if we go into camera and in 3 months, even less, they will be leaked to the media and I really strongly do not want to go into camera for this debate.

Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

I say exactly the same. I think that if we keep this out of camera it will hold people to saying things about the process, which is what this is about, and keep it away from any personal feelings they may have in this debate. So I would urge people not to vote for it to go in camera.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

I  disagree  with  those who  say  that  this  proposition  is  about  process.   When  one  reads  the proposition it is nothing more or less than a personal attack on the Chief Executive of the States and the Chief Executive is not able to answer for himself. Therefore, to go into camera would be an extreme disservice to the Chief Executive who, as I say, cannot answer for himself, and will then be denied the opportunity of hearing what those who wish to attack him have got to say. I think those who wish to attack the Chief Executive should have the courage to do it in public so that he and the public can hear what they have got to say.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Do you wish to say anything in reply, Senator? Senator Z.A. Cameron:

I would just like to say that I think that people.. in fact Deputy Martin's point does back up what I am saying that people will speak differently and have more freedom if we are in camera and decisions regarding appointments are usually not held in public. The person who is appointed is usually just told whether that is so or not and this is what we are debating.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Do you wish the appel, Senator?

Senator Z.A. Cameron:

Appel please.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The appel is called for. The proposition of Senator Cameron is the Assembly should deal with this matter in camera. If you wish to go into camera you vote pour, if you wish to remain in public assembly you vote contre and the Greffier will open the voting.

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :

It  seems  that  2  of  us  are  disappointed  this  morning.   The   Deputy ,  in  starting  to  move  her proposition, said she felt she was disappointed that she had found herself here today and so do I but perhaps they are for slightly different reasons. I just want to reiterate what I said, particularly in the light of the vote there with regard to Senator Cameron's proposition and your ruling from the Chair. It is very difficult to separate the process from the individual but I think that the mover of the proposition did that very well and I hope that all Members manage to do that as well because this is about the role and the process and we are not conducting a public performance appraisal of the incumbent and while we ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sorry to interrupt you, Chief Minister, but as the Constable of St. Clement pointed out the proposition requests the States cancel the contract of employment so it is far more than a debate about process.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

As I said, and your previous ruling from the Chair, which was one that I think was very helpful because we in this Assembly have the benefit of privilege when we speak and others do not in this Assembly have a right of reply by virtue of their role and by virtue of their contract of employment. Can I start by also looking at some of the history of the appointment to ensure that we are all fully aware of the chronology? So in 2011 the post of Chief Executive became available with the resignation of the previous incumbent and that was February 2011. The appointment process was led by the Chief Minister of the time supported by the human resources function and the then chair of the Jersey Appointments Commission. The Council of Ministers agreed that an open on-Inland competition should take place and an advert was placed in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) on 4th May. There were 5 applications and 3 candidates were short listed for interview. There were 3 sets of interviews. There was a main panel consisting of the chair of the Appointments Commission and 2 other Appointments Commissioners together with the ex-Chief Executive of Newcastle City Council as the independent and the then Chief Minister. There was a political panel consisting of 3 Ministers of the day - just for clarity I was not one of those - and there was a technical panel which consisted of the Comptroller and Auditor General and 2 other independent interviewers. The conclusion of the panel was that none of the candidates were appointable. The chair of the Appointments Commission confirmed in an email on 7th June 2011 that the entire process was carried out in accordance with the code of practice and to the satisfaction of the Appointments Commission. The appointment was confirmed as "acting up" on 7th June 2011 by the then Chief Minister. It was agreed the acting up period would continue until May 2012 to allow the new administration to determine how they might wish to proceed and to provide continuity which then takes us to 2012. The appointment was reviewed in May and June 2012 under the direction of the then Council of Ministers. After discussion, they delegated the management of the process to myself, the then Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and the then Minister for Housing. The chair of the Appointments Commission was involved throughout. All previous candidates were reviewed and it was considered that only the incumbent should be considered for the role. An agreed process of competency matching against an agreed job description which, as the Deputy

said, was amended, was implemented and the interview took place. It was decided that the incumbent met the key criteria and was appointable. This was confirmed by the chair of the Commission. He also confirmed that the Commission was aligned on the process which was recommended by the then Human Resources Director. In an email sent to me on 26th November 2015 the person who was then chair of the Commission stated: "There seems to be some confusion between an ordinary appointment process and what we considered for the acting C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) which was a form of slotting. There was no requirement within the senior recruitment codes for specific categories of personnel to make up our panel." It is important that Members note this is not me saying this, this is what the former chairman wrote to me on 26th November this year. "I would also mention that slotting has often been decided by the chairman of the day without reference to other commissioners with the decision simply reported at the next quarterly meeting. On this occasion there was a very full and constructive debate at the meeting of those commissioners present and the H.R. (human resources) Director. A consensus was reached and there was never a threat of anyone resigning over the issue. We did not even have to vote on whether we should proceed. One commissioner was out of the Island at the time of the meeting but the H.R. Director spoke to him on the telephone that afternoon on this and other matters." There is no comment about whether that commissioner agreed or not. I am reading directly from the correspondence. I have stopped reading now from the correspondence. It was agreed that the appointment should be made for a period of 3½ years until the end of 2015. There were a number of reasons for this. Discussions at Council of Ministers and States Employment Board highlighted the need for continuity, stability and to ensure that the Comprehensive Spending Review was followed through and the new reform programme was started. It was also noted that the incumbent had performed well in the role while acting-up. The recruitment processes adopted in both 2011 and 2012 were appropriate to the needs of the organisation at that time and were widely considered and discussed by the Council of Ministers. Well, certainly in 2012 by the Council of Ministers and

by the States Employment Board. I remind Members that the States Employment Board is, I think, one of probably only 2 old-fashioned committees where there are non-ministerial representatives appointed by the Assembly and each vote is equal and they make a decision and the board then abides by that decision. The approach was transparent and not only was endorsed and supported by the Commission and its chairs but had political involvement and, as I have said, was discussed and agreed by both the Council of Ministers and the States Employment Board of the day. As the Deputy said, at the time machinery of government changes were being considered which may well have had a material impact on the role and scope of the Chief Executive's role. All of these issues pointed to the outcome and the approach that we took. I believe that it was right then having taken

appropriate advice and it is still right today. The approach was, as I have said, both open and transparent and we must have confidence in the chairs and the commissioners of the Appointments Commission at the time and I am certain they would not have tolerated any abuse of process or actions which did not fulfil their statutory obligations. Nevertheless, the current chair of the Appointments Commission made herself a decision to review the approach and she confirmed in a briefing to the States Employment Board on Monday afternoon, and by letter copied to Members of this Assembly yesterday, that the approaches taken were both lawful and within the scope of the Commission to agree. The difficulty for us, as an Assembly, if we are to take a contrary view, we are then calling into question the time, the commitment, the professional advice and the support provided by the chairs of the Commission and the commissioners. I have been extremely careful throughout 2015 to getting to the point of extending the current contract of the Chief Executive to ensure there was involvement with the chairman of the Appointments Commission throughout that process and for me it is extremely important that I act and review at all times all the options available, and I did that upon the advice of the chair of the Appointments Commission and the States Employment Board did too. They considered all the options in detail. However, there are, I think, other matters that Members should be aware of and some may consider equally material to this debate. As you have said, twice now, from the Chair, the proposition ultimately invites the States Employment Board to breach a contract of employment which has been mutually agreed by both employer and employee. We need to consider very carefully because if we were to do that there will be a number of consequences which could flow from this and the Deputy , I think, has been clear in her opening remarks and in the proposition, the first of which is a financial one. We see in the proposition a cost of approximately £500,000. Of course that is a figure. It may be less than that or it may be more than that but we, at this moment, cannot say. That is a matter for judgment for Members of the Assembly but I would say that Members will recall the criticism when the previous Chief Executive left his position and was paid that sort of sum.

[10:30]

Of course there was a contract in his employment which entitled him to that payment should he leave the employment of the States. There is no such section in this contract or there is no such contractual agreement. It would be - and I hesitate to stray here - I think as a result of something which might be considered constructive dismissal and the legal technicalities around there that we will be looking at ultimately paying out such a considerable sum. I do not think that Members would think that that was an appropriate way to go or, equally, would be accepted by the public. There is also the issue of reputation. Any other public employee wishing to come to Jersey will have access to this debate, as they have to other issues and matters which have been made public about employees, which would potentially leave us then in a very difficult position because we would be looking for one of our existing officers to enter the role for a period of time and, at the same time, against the backdrop of this debate and these conversations, looking to recruit someone else. I think all Members recognise that that would make life extremely difficult. Of course there is the other question about encouraging succession planning and encouraging localisation which, again, if we were to agree to break this contract, I do not think that would help in any way. There were changes to the role of the Chief Executive that the Assembly agreed in the summer, as the Deputy has admitted, and I think perhaps there is a divergence of opinion about whether that journey of change is complete or not. There was a sub-panel looking at the machinery of government and changes there. Some of those were agreed in this Assembly and some were not and we are continuing on a journey of change around how we deliver the functions of government and, alongside that, the changes and the work that P.P.C. and my department are doing looking at the electoral system. Inevitably, if that changes and if the number of Members changes, then the way that we structure government will have to change as well. So I think that rather than having reached that destination, we have made some improvements but it is an ongoing journey and will be over the next couple of years. I was not in the Assembly, unfortunately, for that debate but I am grateful that the Deputy Chief Minister led that debate and he, during that, said, to put it simply and to make it clear, the change delivered is that the Chief Officer will formulate a report to the Chief Executive Officer for the discharge of their responsibilities and day to day management for their departments and be managed accordingly. That change, I think, is going to help us deliver the reform programme as well because people right across the departments are going to be able to be held accountable for delivering within budgets and delivering savings within their budgets as well. I am coming to a conclusion. In the Deputy 's chronology, she rightly said that she met with me and asked me to make a statement in the Assembly about the extension of the contract and she notes 2 occasions upon which I could have made that statement. I am just double-checking because I have had somebody check my diary. Unfortunately, the reason that I was not able to make the statement on either of those 2 days was because the first one, the States questions, Members will remember, were taken early on the Monday afternoon because it was the M.T.F.P. (Medium Term Financial Plan) period so I was not present. Sadly, Members will be aware, that I was not present either at the sitting on the 20th and the rest of the chronology follows on. So we have addressed some of the concerns of the Deputy throughout this process. We have now, as a States Employment Board, commissioned a recruitment process for a new Chief Executive that will start early in 2016. This, again, is a process that is supported by the Appointments Commission and the human resources section and will allow time for a successful transition and for a new C.E.O. to support the start of a new administration in May 2018 but that process is just starting so we cannot say exactly how it will conclude. I understand the Deputy 's concerns and the Deputy 's frustrations but I do not want Members to simply listen to what I have been saying this morning. I would like them to take account rather of what the chair of the Jersey Appointments Commission has said to Members having, off her own bat, as it were, decided to review the papers and the processes and concluded that they were appropriate and that they were lawful and that was the processes in 2011, 2012 and 2015. I hope that Members will reject this proposition. As I have said, I understand why the Deputy has brought it but I think that we need to be confident in the work of the Appointments Commission and put these debates behind us and allow everyone within the public sector right across departments from the Chief Executive to Chief Officers and to all those delivering services for the benefit of the public to allow them to get on to deliver those changes and to deliver a Government that the public wants and expects which includes a balanced budget out to 2019.

Thank you.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Sir, could I seek a point of clarification from the speaker before he sits down? He referred, during his speech, to a change in the numbers of Members of the States or reduction in the number of Members. Can he clarify what impact that has on this debate and the appointment of this Chief Executive Officer because I am at a loss to understand why that is important?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

The point was this, that I think the Deputy was making the point that we had reached a conclusion when it comes to changes and, yes, we have reached a conclusion on the work of the Machinery of Government Sub-Committee. My point was you could view it that we have reached a conclusion but, equally, with work ongoing around the electoral process and the makeup of this Assembly, if there are changes proposed and agreed there, they will have a knock-on effect potentially to the machinery of government so the form and structure of government itself might change going forward as well as well as the fact that it will change as a result of the reform process.

Deputy A.D. Lewis :

Could I have a point of clarification as well? I may have missed this but the Chief Minister states in his comments that the current incumbent steps down on 2018. When in 2018 would that be?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I think it is May and the option of having a long selection process - which is an option which was raised by the chair of the appointments process because it is an option that she has seen successfully accomplished elsewhere - allows us to allow local applicants a fair position to be able to give time for them if there are areas of weakness that they need to address to do so and, equally, it allows the employer to consider whether people who might be applying from elsewhere who look to have a good C.V. to be able to appropriately consider whether the reality matches the C.V. Because we have had some experiences where we have got into difficulty where I think the C.V. has been good but somebody migrating to Jersey and fitting into our system has found it extremely difficult and it has ended in difficulty. That was why it was suggested that we would have a longer process but I equally know that if we start this process off and some of those conditions are met, it may not, in reality, happen quite like that. It might be that somebody wants to come in a Deputy role with an opportunity to work up to it but the States Employment Board will be led by the Appointments Commission on the appropriate way of dealing with that.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Sorry, just a point of clarification again for the Chief Minister. I do not think he did mislead the House intentionally and I do not know if it is right at Appendix 1, page 4 of the States Employment Board comments where the chair of the Commission is saying it is for a further 3 years until December 2018 but maybe the contract was signed differently, but this is what I am reading that the chair said. So is it May or is it December?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

No, it is May. There was a possibility for a 3-year extension. The States Employment Board discussed this at great length. Just like the previous States Employment Board discussed whether 3 years or 3½ years was an appropriate length of time; we discussed whether 3, 2 or 2½ was appropriate. Bearing in mind that there was an election, it is only fair for a new incumbent to be settled-in prior to an election to go through an selection process, to understand how Jersey works and be fully up to speed prior to having to present a new Government a Strategic Plan, which is probably not possible for somebody to come in quickly and be thrust straight into a Strategic Plan so it is 2½ years rather than the 3.

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

Sir, sorry, another point of clarification as well.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well, it is turning into question time but obviously it needs clarification. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Well, this is something that the Chief Minister referred to in his speech. I cannot remember the exact dates. I think it was 2012 and it was around the Jersey Appointments Commission and I believe the Chief Minister referred to a letter from the then chairman who referred to a very frank exchange of views I think it was between the Appointments Commission after the slotting-in process or whatever it is had been followed and then made reference to the Appointments Commissioner who was off-Island at the time but then he stopped. Right, so 2 questions or 2 points of clarification. One is: do we happen to know of the people on-Island and whether they were unanimous in the process, and I believe that would be 3, versus the commissioner that was off- Island and whether he was supportive of the process?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Can you clarify?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

So this is where we get into difficulty because they are an independent body who advise on the correct process and it was this email I received on 26th November this year which was detailing what had happened back in 2012. I purposefully read out the detail of the correspondence that I had received because of what had been portrayed in the media, and what was some people's understanding and the previous chairman wished to, in his view I think, set the record straight. I can do no better than re-read it just for the Deputy which was, on this occasion, there was a very full and constructive debate at the meeting of those commissioners present and the H.R. Director. A consensus was reached. The note does not say or the bit of the note I have got here in my speech does not say the view of the off-Island Commissioner as I pointed out when I spoke.

[10:45]

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, may I interrupt? I wanted to ask a question of the Attorney General which I think might be useful at this point so that we have an opinion early on in the debate. I am sorry to interrupt.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Well, put the question to the Solicitor General. Deputy M. Tadier :

The Solicitor General. Thank you. It relates to the comments of the Chief Minister. He stated that there is no contractual clause as was in the case for a previous Chief Executive. He said that there is a possibility that there could be a case of constructive dismissal brought against the States Employment Board if he were minded to do so. Well, first of all, I suspect that the Chief Minister may have taken legal advice on this but could we know what the likelihood is of a successful case being brought against the States of Jersey in this matter and what the relevant costs might be in the event of that happening?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do you need any time, Solicitor General?

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

I think that my answer to that is that it is very difficult for me to speculate at this stage on the likely chances of a case succeeding in court because even when proceedings are brought in court, there are so many factors that are perhaps unknown risks that are not anticipated that can lead to a different result from the one that is expected. I think all that I can say is that certainly there is a risk of a claim for constructive dismissal and potentially various other heads of claim as well but I think it would perhaps be wrong for me to speculate on what those might be because my role, if such a claim was to be brought, would be to defend it. I think it would be wrong for me to spell-out potential claims that are available to a possible future litigant.