States Meeting Transcript - 27th September 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 27th SEPTEMBER 2017

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS..........................3

1. Nomination of committee members for Public Accounts Committee. ..................3

1.1 Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee): ..........3

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................4

2. States Assembly: selection and appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels - return to secret ballots (P.73/2017) - amendment (P.73/2017.Amd).....................4

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:........................................................4

1. Deputy R. Labey : ........................................................................5
2. The Connétable of St. John:..............................................................6
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:........................................................6
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................7
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:......................................................7
6. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .........................................................7
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................8
8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................9
9. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:........................................................9
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................10
11. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................11
12. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................12
13. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................12
14. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................13

2. States Assembly: selection and appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels - return to secret ballots (P.73/2017) - resumption.......................................15

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................15
2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :....................................................................16
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................17
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................18
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................19
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................20
7. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ....................................................20
8. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................21
9. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................21
10. Deputy S.M. Brée: ..................................................................22
11. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................23
12. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................23
13. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................24
14. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :.................................................................25
15. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................26
16. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................28

17. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : ..................................................28
18. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................29
19. Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:...............................................30
20. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................31
21. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................31
22. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................31
23. Deputy R. Labey :....................................................................31

3. Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.74/2017)............................................................40

3.1 The Deputy of St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):.........................40

1. Senator A.K.F. Green: ..................................................................41
2. The Deputy ofSt.Mary:................................................................42
3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................42
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
5. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................45 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................46

4. Chief Minister: election by Island-wide vote of registered electors (P.78/2017).......46

4.1 Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................46

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................50
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................50
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................51
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................55
6. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................57
7. Deputy R. Labey : ......................................................................58

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................59

5. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................59

1. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................59
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................60
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................60

[9:32]

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

Connétable of St. John , I was informed you had something that you wished to inform the Assembly of.

APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

1. Nomination of committee members for Public Accounts Committee.

1.1 Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John (Chairman, Public Accounts Committee):

If I may, I would like to start by thanking this Assembly for electing me and putting the trust in me to be Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but before I go forward to nominate membership for my Committee I would like to firstly pay thanks to the former Committee members who have stood down. Firstly, to the Constable of St. Helier, whose term was brief, but did an excellent exercise and took the lead on the report into the new police station. Secondly, I would like to thank Deputy Andrew Lewis of St. Helier, the former Chair of the Committee. Whilst his departure was not particularly pleasant, the 3 years he has worked on that Committee has been substantial. [Approbation] It is right that he receives the recognition for the enormous amount of work that he did. The third person I would like to thank is Mr. Gary Drinkwater, a lay member of the Committee, who sadly fell ill in London. He is now recovering, but the recovery, unfortunately, while being steady is slow. His input on to the Committee was substantial and we owe him a very great debt and I would like it noted my thanks, the Committee's thanks and I sincerely hope this Assembly's thanks to him and his family. [Approbation] To start with, I would like to have 2 States Members and 2 lay members on the Committee in order to be compliant. I would like to nominate 2 States Members to start with, being Deputy Judy Martin and Deputy Montfort Tadier .

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I wonder if I might raise the défaut on Deputy Martin.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, indeed, the défaut is raised on Deputy Martin. That probably will be helpful. Senator L.J. Farnham :

May I raise the défaut on Senator Maclean?

The Deputy Bailiff :

On Senator Maclean as well.

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

And the Constable of St. Saviour .

The Deputy Bailiff :

And the Constable of St. Saviour, excellent. So, you have nominated - just for those who were on their way in - Deputy Martin and Deputy Tadier as States Member members of your Committee, Connétable . That has been seconded. I was about to ask are there any other nominations. If there are no other nominations, then Deputy Martin and Deputy Tadier are members of the Committee. [Approbation]

The Connétable of St. John :

If I may, I shall also be asking - and they have accepted, but I am not sure on the procedure - the 2 lay members to be Mr. Robert Parker and Mr. Michael Robinson.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, that is not a matter for the Assembly on this occasion. The Connétable of St. John :

That is a matter for afterwards. Thank you, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, thank you very much.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. States Assembly: selection and appointment of Ministers, Committees and Panels - return to secret ballots (P.73/2017) - amendment (P.73/2017.Amd)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now return to the debate on the proposition of Deputy Labey , P.73/2017. The proposition has been made and seconded, and there is an amendment from Deputy Mézec . I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Page 2, paragraph (b) - for the words "the Minister(s), subject to review by a corresponding Scrutiny Panel, should be excluded from voting for the chair of that particular panel" substitute the words "all Ministers should be excluded from voting for all Scrutiny Panel chairs."

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier :

Good morning, and good morning to everyone else as well. I am not going to speak for very long on this amendment, because I think it is on an issue of principle that I think most States Members will probably be able to make up their minds on pretty quickly. I think that the proposition lodged by Deputy Labey rightly forces us to consider a few issues to do with how we organise ourselves in this Assembly and how we allocate the roles to various official positions. I do not agree with every point that he has made in his proposition, but the point he has made about who should be able to vote for the people who will head up our Scrutiny Panels, I think, is a sound one. He used the example: who would you prefer to be your inquisitor, Jeremy Paxman, or Alan Titchmarsh and I just felt that the inevitable conclusion of that way of thinking must surely be that it does not just apply to the Minister in question for that particular panel, but surely it must apply to the entire Council of Ministers. It is my personal experience on Scrutiny that has led me to believe this. I am a member of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, which, I think, has done some very interesting work over the last few years, none more so than our review into financing tertiary education. Throughout the process of doing that review, of course, we did not just scrutinise the work of the Minister for Education, we also scrutinised the work of the Chief Minister and of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, who, of course, have a vital input into what our Education Department is able to do. We know that there are other examples where panels will be reviewing

work done, perhaps, by the whole Council of Ministers, or by groups of Ministers put together and it just got me thinking that the Council of Ministers, in this government system, is a team. The successes that they have together will be shared by them all for all their hard work towards those objectives, but likewise it also means when they get something wrong it reflects on the whole team. The purpose of Scrutiny, as we know, is not to be the opposition in this Chamber, but it is to be there to objectively scrutinise what the Government does and from time to time that may well mean highlighting a blunder.

[9:45]

It may well necessitate drawing attention to something the Government has got wrong, sometimes something the Government has got very, very wrong, and that is an important tool, because knowing that there is this mechanism to be held to account will incentivise the Government to work harder, so that they do not make as many mistakes. That is, I think, an essential democratic safeguard. So, I think the logic that follows from the points made by Deputy Labey must, surely, be that the whole team is bound together by their successes and failures and, therefore, those who are scrutinising them, to maintain their independence properly; I think that they should not be chosen by the entire Council of Ministers. I accept that some Members will not necessarily agree with that point, or they will not even agree with the point that is made by Deputy Labey and they might point to other examples of Parliaments, in the Commonwealth, that have different procedures for electing the heads of their Select Committees. I do not necessarily feel that those are fair comparisons, especially the House of Commons system, which is very, very different, where, of course, they have the party system which enables them to produce quotas for which parties will have X number of seats on which panels. Of course, they also have traditions in the House of Commons, such as the one that says the chair of their Public Accounts Committee should always be a member of the lead opposing party. So, they have, I think, different mechanisms for making sure that their Select Committees have the right people on them to hold the Government to account and obviously that is a framework that we do not have in this Assembly. So, I want to give this Assembly the opportunity to decide whether, or not, we could do what I think will enhance our scrutiny and let those Members, who are not tied to the Executive, decide who chairs those panels, so that they can claim that extra bit of independence and be able, I think, to scrutinise what the Government does, without fear or favour. The final point I make on this is that this is not to cast aspersions on any current, or future, Minister. I think it is simply to recognise that there is a perception of conflict there, whether we like it or not, and if this amendment and then the main proposition from Deputy Labey is accepted, that argument will not be able to be had. I think that would enhance Scrutiny. I think it would enhance our government system as a whole, so I want to give the Assembly the opportunity to have that debate and make up their mind on it. So, I make the

amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Very well, does any Member wish to speak on the amendment? Deputy Labey .

1. Deputy R. Labey :

Just to say, before Members ask, that it has always been my intention with this proposition to take each item separately when it does come to the vote. I do not disagree with anything that Deputy Mézec has said. I did think very, very carefully when drawing up this proposition and my inclination was to go with something more incremental to begin with as a toe in the water' exercise, because I thought that might be more acceptable to Members. Of course, the principle is exactly the same between my original proposition and Deputy Mézec 's amendment and I would be quite happy with it, if the House is happy with it.

2. The Connétable of St. John :

I was very interested by the amendment and I would support it because, currently, we have something called ministerial responsibility and, of course, this is tied in through a collective responsibility. Under collective responsibility I think it is reasonable that if one Minister cannot do something, then it should be collectively responsible and all Ministers should be under the same condition.

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

Where we were on P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) we have gone around and around with this and I think we - 6 months ago - were nearly here and then we went backwards after we sent the proposal to the Chairmen's Committee. I brought some Standing Orders through. Again, this was one of the ones that was pushed to the Sub-Committee when the new Assembly was formed. Again, we could not get agreement, so I think today is the day we have the debate with the current Members. Deputy Labey 's one seems, as he says, to be incremental, step it slowly, slowly, but where are we? Because we are in such a mess. I brought something to ask the Chief Minister about Assistant Ministers. We do not know where we are there. But, let us be fair. Let us go with the process we have today. We come in here after the general election. We know who has been nominated, maybe with 2 names, or with the 6 names, and we have the election for Chief Minister. Once that is done, he has some time and he then nominates his Ministers, normally 10, maybe 11, whoever they are. We then know who they are and with all the cross-sections of a bit of this and a bit of that, it is very hard for Scrutiny to say: "Well, when we go to the next round, we will say that that Minister there cannot vote for the chairman of Scrutiny, or that Minister there cannot vote for a chairman of Scrutiny." Very, very messy. They have then, on that first day, second day, formed a Council. They have no idea, so we are told - they are not even elected - who their Assistants are going to be. They are all going to be in this House as Back-Benchers, so why can we not say to the rest of the Assembly: the Council is elected, it is collective. It says it on all their propositions: collective responsibility. The Council of Ministers has a single policy on this position, on this proposition, and as such all Ministers are bound and it will be the Assistant Minister, as well. But forget the Assistant Minister for now because, magically, there are phone calls that go on after - we always say after - the chairs are elected. Nobody knows, sitting here the day after, if they have had the phone call. The Chief Minister is agreeing with me. Well, that is good to hear. [Interruption] But actually, no, we say on the one hand our Assembly is different, we have moved parts.

Assistant Ministers are not elected .. I do not know what the Chief Minister is talking about there. Assistant Ministers are not known. We are talking about the Council of Ministers being not allowed to vote on Back-Benchers' positions on Scrutiny chairs. It is as simple as that. The Chief Minister elects his team. The team leave the Assembly, then the rest are all Back-Benchers. They can ask questions. Maybe that is going too far. They are not allowed to vote. To me it is cleaner than Deputy Labey 's. They know exactly where they are. Even if you have the phone call as an Assistant Minister, you are still allowed to vote, you are still allowed to nominate, but you know the collective team cannot pick the person who is going to chair the Scrutiny team for the next 4 years. It is a very simple proposition. I am glad we are having this debate today, because it has gone around since me and Senator Ozouf were elected to the Sub-Committee and we have gone back to the Committee. We have, as I say, nearly been there and then it has gone to the Chairmen's Committee. For some reason the Chairmen want the sort of halfway house that Deputy Labey is thinking about, and they will stand up and obviously, I hope, tell us why because I was not in the room at the time. Very messy. We know who the Council are after the first 2 days. They cannot vote on who is scrutinising for the next 4 years, very simple. They are collective. The rest of us need to do the work and they cannot be in the process of electing that person who chairs it. It is simple.

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

I ask the question and it is a rhetorical one: who would you rather be interrogated by as a Minister, by myself, or by a Constable from one of the country Parishes? I know, I know, yes, that will not be seen as legitimate criticism. It nonetheless is. Why have I not been elected a chairman for the past number of years, having done a thorough, good, forensic job on Economic Affairs and on Social Services throughout the years? Because, I put it to you: because we know, in our heart of hearts, Ministers vote to give themselves the easiest time possible. They do not want forensic analysis of their policies. They do not want enthusiasm and commitment that drives forward good Scrutiny. They would much rather have tea and cakes with somebody less effective. That is the reality. While people may shake their heads, people may say: "Oh". No, look in your heart of hearts. How does this system work? We know exactly how it works. It works on a party system that has no name. The Ministers do not need to make that round of phone calls. They know who their mates are. If they want a scientific, forensic analysis of their policies and the consequences of them, they would be picking me, but they do not. They would much rather have an easier time with some other chair than pick me. That is the reality. I know that to be the truth. I suspect many of us in this Chamber do. So, I would urge Members, if anything is of value in this proposition, it is this amendment, which can tidy up that particular anomaly, which makes it, in some cases, ludicrously easy for a Minister to be nominally held to account, but to receive very little in the way of a thorough search of consequences and decisions on how things are done. That is what I would argue. I think we know it. I urge Members to vote for this amendment.

5. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I just wanted to add to Deputy Martin's point about the messiness it could be to try and pick one Minister when something else is going on and, of course, Deputy Mézec 's point, which was how, when you have issues and policies which cross across departments, it does not seem as clear to do that. The point I wanted to add, though, of course, is as we have seen with this Chief Minister, if you want to collapse and move responsibilities around within a ministerial portfolio, so you could begin with one policy aspect somewhere and have it transferred somewhere else, in which case it does seem cleaner and to make more sense to have it across the board with the Ministers, rather than to have a confusing system. Because you could have a Chief Minister who says: "This is how I want my ministerial portfolios to be after I am elected", but that still has to come back to the Assembly, but you have to choose the Ministers before that. So, we could find ourselves in a quite confusing situation where we do not know where the different policy aspects and angles are. As I say, it seems much cleaner to have it across the board than simply to pick and choose, so if the Assembly is minded to go this way, it does seem to me to make more sense.

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

I am very minded to support Deputy Labey in his proposition on this and, certainly, from my own instance, I would not feel comfortable voting for the chair of the Scrutiny Panel that would look into the work that I do in the Environment Department. But speakers thus far have said that it is very clear what the amendment means, but to me it is not. We have already had some speeches that referred to Ministers and Assistant Ministers and some to Ministers. I have looked back at the amendment and it is quite clear that it is referring to Ministers. That is not clear for me inasmuch as we do not know yet how many Ministers will be appointed in the next session of Government. It may well be that we have 4 Ministers, each with 3 or 4 Assistant Ministers and the amendment would mean something very different. The Chief Minister, in the next session, may decide to appoint only Ministers and not have them have Assistant Ministers. So, what we are being asked to do here is to move forward with something where we do not know how many Members of this Assembly would be excluded from voting for Scrutiny chairs. It would be much clearer if the amendment had said the Executive and not Ministers, because what we do not know is how the Executive will be made up in the next session. I will not be supporting the amendment.

7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I am glad to hear from at least one Minister. I do not think the Minister has understood the issue here, because it is about chronology, essentially. Deputy Mézec is quite right and he quite clearly said it will only be Ministers. There is a practical reason for that. It is because we elect the Chief Minister first. We then elect Ministers after that point and it may well be in the future that the Chief Minister might appoint his Ministers, if the Assembly think that is right. It may well be that the Chief Minister says: "I do not think we need any Ministers, because I can do all of the jobs myself", which you could argue it is going in that direction already anyway, with his very good administrative support that he gets from some very talented officers, it has to be said.

[10:00]

But let us work on the assumption that there will be a Chief Minister, there will be at least some Ministers to head up the major departments and I do not see us going down to fewer than 7, or 8, ministries. That is the starting point, so it is one of principle. Of course, we could exclude Assistant Ministers and in theory we should, if we elected the Assistant Ministers ourselves, before the Scrutiny chairmen. Then, of course, we probably would do that, but the next point on the agenda in the new Assembly is that we appoint and we elect the Scrutiny chairmen so, of course, we do not know who the Assistant Ministers are officially. Certainly, we do not know as an Assembly, although I am sure the Assistant Ministers probably know by that point. So, it is purely a matter of practicality. I do not think the arguments that were advanced by the last speaker are valid and hopefully they have been cleared up very quickly by that explanation. Now, I see this as a great opportunity, because if there is one thing I think we all agree is that we hear time and time again from the public that Scrutiny does not have enough teeth, that Scrutiny is not respected, that Scrutiny is ignored and that Scrutiny does not have equality of arms. Now, some of those things are probably factually correct. Some of those are perceptions from the outside. Some of those are accusations from .. not accusations, but points that are raised from scrutineers themselves inside the Assembly, certainly to do with the equality of arms. We have seen today when trying to recruit people for a new committee, or an existing panel, towards the end of a term - and this is at a time when we are talking about reducing States Members - it is difficult even sometimes to get the numbers to work on Scrutiny. So, we have to recognise that there is a problem both, I think, in perception and in reality with the way Scrutiny functions, not necessarily systemically but just with the way it is respected and perhaps resourced. One of the biggest things that we can do as an Assembly, to restore the public's trust in this Island, in the absence of any meaningful democratic reforms during this Assembly for 3 and a half years, is to say: "Yes, we do recognise that Scrutiny is important and, therefore, we will strengthen Scrutiny by this one simple act." Hopefully, there is another area of consensus that we can all agree to: that Scrutiny should be independent and it

should be independent from the Executive. Now, if we believe in that principle, and I hope that we all do agree that Scrutiny should be independent, how can it possibly be independent if Ministers are able to vote and have a say on who those Scrutiny chairmen and chairwomen are? There is an issue there, because, in reality, we know that the biggest potentially organised and disciplined voting bloc in this Assembly and in any future Assembly will be the Council of Ministers and that includes, in reality, Assistant Ministers. On a good day, we know that when the whips are out, even on a proposition that they might lose .. and we have seen certain propositions come to this Assembly where the only people to vote against the proposition are Ministers and Assistant Ministers. There are a few examples of that. You can imagine in a new Assembly, when you have new faces and people who are not necessarily organised, where the only voting bloc to be organised is the Council of Ministers, who have had time and the resources to say: "This is our game plan. Who do we want as the Scrutiny chairmen?" That is simply not acceptable. So, I think the one thing we can do today is get behind the amended proposition, this part, which Deputy Russell Labey of St. Helier has already said he is willing to accept, and do things properly. I do not buy this incremental change, because it is purely tokenism if we say that one Minister .. and, of course, the Assistant Minister for that person would already be able to vote freely knowing the fact that they are going to be an Assistant Minister anyway so it cancels it out. So, let us do things properly. Let us say that Scrutiny should be ring-fenced for those purposes and that Ministers, once they have been chosen, should not have anything to do with the election of any of the Scrutiny Panels. The point has been very well made, of course, that many Scrutiny Panels look across departmental issues anyway and many policies, increasingly, are being brought forward across the departments. I think those are the only real points that need to be made. I think we should fully support this. The Council of Ministers has been very silent up until now. They have not issued comments. If this proposition were to fail, because a majority of the Council of Ministers voted against it, that exactly highlights the problem we are talking about, so I think it is important. Maybe the Council of Ministers might wish to abstain on this particular vote, just to show willing as to how it is going to work in the future.

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

I am just going to say a few words; one, to agree with Deputy Southern . There are Members in this Assembly, who might not like to think of themselves as being weak, or perceived as weak, or there are others who are perceived as strong. Let me put it this way. The Council of Ministers are very interested in what Scrutiny does and how effective Scrutiny is. There have been occasions in this Assembly when the Council of Ministers have attacked personally and thrown obstacles in the way of committee chairmen. I think, for example, of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on the review of the States of Jersey Development Company. It got to the stage where they had to issue summonses to get information, yet Ministers were fighting hard and fast to prevent any information coming out. To this day, I still do not believe that this Assembly knows the truth of what has gone on in the States of Jersey Development Company and the developments. We were told various things about pre-lets and so on, which changed over time. You get a Scrutiny chairman and a panel that are trying to get to the root of the matter and they have every obstacle thrust in their way, because it was not convenient. There have been other examples. I can think of Senator Ferguson, on another occasion. I can even think of my own first term and the problems that I had. All I can say is that the Council of Ministers should not be given a free ride. If Scrutiny is going to be effective, it has to have good, strong, independent chairmen, not people who are friends and are just going to toe the line and change their view. If that is thought unfair on some committee chairmen, I apologise for it. I know there are some very, very good chairmen out there, but what I would say is they should not get a free ride and I agree totally with Deputy Mézec on this one. All the Council of Ministers should be excluded from choosing the committee chairmen.

9. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement :

Firstly, I would like to say that the comments made by Deputy Southern about the Constables I believe to be totally wrong. [Approbation] I work with a number of Constables on a number of Scrutiny Panels and I have to say their work ethic and their commitment to seeing something through is something that we could learn a lot from. Moving on, though, I think that what has come out of Deputy Mézec 's speech, when he was proposing this amendment, is quite interesting to me and quite concerning at the same time. It is the way in which the term "government" has come to mean the Council of Ministers, the Executive. Now, effectively, we do not have party politics as yet, so you do not have the leader of a party, who have won the majority in an election, being asked to form a Government. We, the States Assembly, do appoint Ministers. Yet I think Deputy Mézec is quite right in the fact that we are faced with this situation where, at the heart of the problem that we are debating over this amendment, is collective responsibility. If you are a Minister, you are bound by collective responsibility. You have the interests of the whole of the Council of Ministers to bear in mind. So, while we might agree with Deputy Russell Labey 's proposal that a single Minister should not be allowed to vote for the chairman of the Scrutiny Panel, that is going to scrutinise that particular area, the rest of the Council of Ministers will, obviously, be minded to ensure that possibly the best person for that role does not get that role. So, if we are going to go down the route of saying: "No, a Minister cannot elect the chairman of his, or her, panel," then we do have to extend that to cover all Ministers. Because, unless we do, we face the problem of still a collective responsibility, a collective voting, creeping in from the other Ministers. I think it is only fair that Scrutiny is allowed, or the chairmen of Scrutiny Panels, are allowed to be elected totally independently of the wishes of the Government, because otherwise Scrutiny ceases to be totally and truly independent. It ceases to have the ability to influence policy that is brought forward by Ministers, or the Council of Ministers, because, as I said, perhaps the right person has not got the right job. Therefore, I seriously urge Members to support this amendment and to support the work of Scrutiny and to support Scrutiny's independence.

10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do understand the sentiments behind what Deputy Mézec is proposing and if I may politely say to Deputy Mézec who is - and I respect the fact that he is - in a party and perhaps some of his other party members I hope that he will say the comments made by Deputy Southern , not only of the Constables, but that Ministers who do not want to be scrutinised, I think, is not the way to win friends and influence people. Ministers, certainly in my experience, do want to be scrutinised and do want to be scrutinised properly. There are a number of fundamental issues which do underlie, which I agree with Deputy Brée about. There is a whole debate about the evolution of ministerial government, what government is. The word "government" has been, it is true, only recently introduced as a concept and, in reality, government has a number of elements in it, of which a parliament is one, but, colloquially, the word "Government" is normally used in terms of the Executive. Our Executive does have, in law, collective responsibility, but I have to say I do not think collective responsibility is working within this Government. I do not think it is there. It may be there in law, but it is not there in practice, certainly in what I have seen in the last few months. You have, effectively, what is a collective responsibility in law, but you almost have a fiction of it, because you have a number of people who are operating with one set of maybe undisclosed, or nod and wink, collective responsibility, dealing with some issues - and I can see Deputy Mézec agreeing with me - and others. Indeed, I think there are some big issues that this Assembly and we, as an Island, are going to have to tackle in terms of the way we run our political system, because things are not working. Having collective responsibility in law clearly is sending a very bad message out to people in terms of the fact that Ministers are effectively gagged by law in not speaking, but they have to supposedly, certainly in public, say that they are part of, effectively, this collective responsibility. In other places, collective responsibility would be bound by a party system and a party system would be transparent if it is 2 parties together in coalition, which would have a coalition agreement. Here you have a number of individuals, who are operating, effectively, a coalition of independents and they have this coalition agreement, if it is one, which is approved by this Assembly, because their manifesto is effectively the plan put forward by the Chief Minister. So, I am afraid it is all a bit of a jumble, because, effectively, we are trying to overlay concepts which are, at the heart of it, the Westminster system, which is bound by rules and has evolved with rules that have emerged on a party system, and trying to put this on top of an independent system of government, an independent system of individuals. The whole thing is, frankly, a bit plastic,

because it really is not. The Council of Ministers is not a party. [10:15]

If it was a coalition of independents, with a coalition agreement, well, that is not working, that is for sure, with what I see in terms of different views of different Ministers and the support that, supposedly, the Chief Minister has. I do not think he has had the support that is required, certainly, in law from some Ministers on different occasions. Now, you could say that if there might be some allegiances it might be that I would be in support - not because I like him personally, but I happen to sign up to his policies and what he believes in - that I am a member of his coalition, but then I am not in the government. So, if this proposal would be put forward, I would be voting as a "Senator Gorst ite" but I am not in a party, because we do not have a party, but then if I am not a Minister I can vote for Scrutiny chairs. This is just, effectively, a jumble and it is making a whole series of rules. I will come back to the underlying proposition in a minute, but with the greatest of respect I do understand and respect the views that Deputy Mézec put forward. But, effectively, trying to put these rules on, in this piecemeal way, without having a proper discussion and some settlement about what it means - and the future Government of Jersey in terms of the Executive sorted out next time, I think, needs to be done - in this piecemeal fashion, with the greatest of respect, I cannot support even though I understand the sentiments that Deputy Mézec says. To take it to the extreme and just to point out the farcical situation that you would have: the Chief Minister does not have the view of who his Ministers are, so you have, effectively, Back-Benchers, who are going to vote Ministers, who might want to put somebody on the Council of Ministers almost to make sure that it does not work. I hear some silence on that. That has happened; that you put somebody on the Council of Ministers so effectively it does not work. Now, those Back-Benchers, who now are saying they are not part of the Government and they want to be Scrutiny and want to, basically, vote for their own members, I understand that - which is why I would support ultimately, in a new system, what Deputy Mézec is saying - those Back-Benchers will vote for the Minister that will, effectively, mean the Council of Ministers will not work, but the Chief Minister will have to say: "I am just going to have to accept this slate of Ministers" because he cannot decide, effectively, who his team is. Then some people are excluded from the decision of the Ministers, but not the Scrutiny Panels. This is a mess. You cannot have one rule for one and one rule for another. Yes, we do need to evolve our political systems. We do need to have some more transparency. Collective responsibility needs to be dealt with and collective responsibility needs to be respected, but this, I am afraid, while agreeing with the sentiment, not at the moment, Deputy Mézec , if I may say through the Chair. I understand the sentiment he is making, the points are not lost, and I think there is a debate to be had on sorting out quite a number of things. But the way this Assembly has done piecemeal incremental changes has got us into the nightmare we have got to and I do not want to be part of a piecemeal thing. I want to be part of a proper overall reorganisation of systems and I hope the Chief Minister is going to try and do as much as he possibly can in terms of trying to sort this out, because life cannot be easy for a Chief Minister that

has legal collective responsibility, but effectively not collective responsibility in reality.

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

Just briefly, I am very pleased to follow Senator Ozouf , because he has said much of what I was going to say. I would support and I have seen already Ministers abstaining from votes when it comes to Scrutiny Panel members, when they know they are going to be scrutinising them. It is almost self-policing at the moment. To add in the extra, to have all Members of the Government - as Deputy Brée suggested that they were not - excluded from voting, I think, would be almost undemocratic. All of us are independent Members, regardless of whether we are part of the Government, or not, and many of those Ministers have independent views and do express them and go against collective responsibility when it seems fit. Sometimes they are permitted a free vote, as well. So, they are independent Members. They are not members of a party. I think to exclude them from the democratic right to vote for people that are going to scrutinise them, would be wrong. I also do not agree that Ministers do not want effective scrutiny, because they do. I have seen it happen and they welcome effective, well-run scrutiny, because it is doing work which, sometimes, they do not have time to do. I have often heard Ministers welcome and thank Scrutiny chairs for the work they have done and it has been extremely useful. I have seen it particularly happen with the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Minister has said as much in recent times. So, to exclude Members to not be able to vote for chairs of those committees, I think, would be undemocratic and not what our Chamber should be doing. If we change the whole system, as Senator Ozouf was suggesting - not that he had a solution, but it does need change, we all know that - then that is a different conversation for a different time. As laudable as Deputy Mézec 's suggestions are, I just do not think now is the time. I think we should stick with what Deputy Labey is proposing and not make this amendment.

12. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am really just speaking, I think, in my capacity as President of the Chairmen's Committee. I did just seek a memory refresher as to what the chairmen have said. It was something like May of last year, which is why I had to search my memory. Essentially, the submission we made to the P.P.C. Standing Orders Committee, at the time when this particular proposal was put in front of us, is that we made the alternative suggestion, which broadly equals what Deputy Russell Labey is proposing. The reason was so as not to unduly restrict the participation of Members in the business of the Assembly, we would propose that the restriction on voting should only apply on a case-by-case basis. In other words, Ministers that would fall directly within the jurisdiction of the panel, whose chairman was subject to election, should not be permitted to vote during the process was our view. So, for example, Ministers for Environment, Housing and Infrastructure would not vote during an election of the chairman of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. I do hasten to add - I cannot remember whether it was a unanimous view, or not, or whether members' views have changed since then, and obviously the Chairmen's Committee is not bound by collective responsibility - but I will not be supporting this amendment on the basis of the submission we made and I will be supporting Deputy Labey 's proposals.

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

I think I understand what Members are trying to get to here, but I find myself in a position where I am agreeing with Senator Ozouf and Deputy Andrew Lewis , to a certain extent, unusually. I do not mean that horribly. The position I see here is that we are being asked to decide whether all Ministers are able to vote for a chair of a Scrutiny Panel. Now, anybody that has served on Scrutiny and understands the Scrutiny system, also knows that we can elect members of those panels. So, the chairs will not be voted for by Ministers, but the members of the panel can be voted by Ministers. Then, of course, bearing in mind that the chairman does not chair every single report, that can be given to a member of the panel to chair up a particular review on something. That particular review could be within the role of an Assistant Minister of that particular department, who is able to vote for that member. So it gets extremely messy and I believe that it is more democratic that all Members are able to have a say in who takes on these extremely important roles. I do not think it tarnishes the independence and the objectivity of the role of Scrutiny. We have a very unique system in Jersey where we do not have this party politics and we do not have that opposition, as such, in terms of the one party versus the other, but there is a lot of opposition. There is and it does not have to be aggressive. I have seen it time and time again where there have been chairs appointed and they have been elected, Ministers have voted for those chairs, and they have been at complete loggerheads. It does work; it can work. Scrutiny does have the teeth, if they want to use it. They can bring a proposition, just like any single Member of this States Assembly can bring a proposition and debate it here and have the argument on the floor of this Assembly, as to whether we believe something should be implemented, or not. So, I think this is done trying to assist with a system that I think is extremely broken already and with all the good intentions in the

world, I think, it is not going to help. If anything, it is going to make it worse. I hope, like I do with many things when we are debating stuff in this Assembly, that taking on board the fact that if you want that pure independence in a scrutiny role, then I think it is absolutely down to the integrity of the role of the members on that Scrutiny Panel to ensure they keep that objectiveness and that independence and ensure that almost everything that they do is done in a public forum, because that is the purpose. It is openness and transparency of Scrutiny and ensuring you are holding that Minister to account. One thing we do fail on, in a Scrutiny function, is making sure that we follow up in terms of the recommendations we make and make sure that the Ministers are implementing what they said that they agreed to. So, unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment, or the actual paragraph (b) of Deputy Labey 's proposition. I do understand the intentions and I do understand what they are trying to attempt, but I think this is the wrong route.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? I call on Deputy Mézec to respond.

14. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

Thank you to Members who have contributed. I have to say I quite like Back-Bench Senator Ozouf . There is quite a lot of what he said in his speech that I agreed with. Obviously, I do not agree with how he will be voting on this, but he made some points that I thoroughly agree on. He used the phrase "overlay concepts" from other jurisdictions and I think that there is a lot of that going on. I completely accept that and I think that is far from ideal. I think his chief criticism of this proposition was that it constitutes piecemeal change and that there is a lot more that needs to be done to amend our government system to get it working properly. Again, I agree with that. I think it is not too dissimilar to the point that was made, just then, by the Deputy of St. John. I cannot remember the exact phrase she used, but she did say this was a broken system and things like this are not necessarily helpful. I completely see where those Members are coming from and I know that any Member of this Assembly, or the public for that matter, will know that the government system that we currently have is a million miles away from the one that I think would work best in the Island. On a few occasions I have brought these amendments, to do my best to see what we can do to work within the current framework, to try and make it a little bit less bad, if that makes sense. There are elements of what we do that I think we will agree do not necessarily work very well, and while I might want wholesale change, to make the system entirely different from what we have, I accept that that is probably not likely to happen any time soon. Therefore, I am prepared to support minor changes that, I think, do tinker with things to improve things. I do not think that is a bad thing to do and that is why I will not be supporting every part of Deputy Labey 's proposition, but some parts of it I will be, because even though they would not necessarily constitute what I would like in a perfect system, we are not going to get what I consider a perfect system, so I do think it is right that we should make minor amendments every now and then to try and improve things and get them working a bit better. In terms of the argument that was made by Deputy Southern , I may not have phrased it in exactly the way that he did, but if we were taking the point he was making, which is that if you were going to look at a current Minister and ask who would they prefer to have scrutinise them, somebody like Deputy Southern , who is a stated opponent of the political philosophy of this current Council of Ministers and is someone who is a highly experienced scrutineer, versus somebody who may be more politically sympathetic to the Council of Ministers and less sympathetic, I think it is fair to say that even if Ministers were going to act with professionalism, which as the Deputy of St. John said they certainly have done previously when it comes to this, there is certainly at least a perception of a conflict there. I will turn it round and I will ask Members to think of it this way. Imagine a hypothetical, not so distant future, where I was serving as a Minister. Who would I prefer to have scrutinising my department, Deputy Southern , or somebody else? Well, of course, I would want Deputy Southern scrutinising it, because he is somebody who I know is very politically sympathetic to my position and he is my friend. Great. So, speaking of which, I would prefer to have him scrutinising me.

[10:30]

Would Members of this Assembly feel comfortable with me getting on with a job in Government in a  ministerial  department  with   Deputy   Southern  being  chair  of  the  Scrutiny  Panel  that  are scrutinising my work? Well, I would say that that would not necessarily be appropriate and it would be better to get somebody else in that political instance.

Deputy G.P. Southern : Would the speaker give way? Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

I will give way.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Since I am being addressed. The potential Minister would have one heck of a time, as I grilled him fiercely about what the consequences of his policies were. I know how to take my party political cap off and put my Scrutiny hat on and ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if a Member speaking agrees to give way, you can ask him to explain any material part of his speech, or any material part of your speech, if it has been mischaracterised in your view, or to elucidate a matter raised in the speech, not to make another speech.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

If I did, I apologise. I thought I was elucidating. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

It was a welcome point, as far as I am concerned. The Member who, I think, summed up the motivation behind this proposition most simply was the Constable of St. John, who referred to collective responsibility. I know that there are issues behind collective responsibility and I do not support collective responsibility within our current system, but I accept we have it. Therefore, if we have it, we have to make do and amend the other parts of our government system to take into account that we have it. So, what the Constable of St. John said about his motivation for supporting it being based on the fact we have collective responsibility, I think, is the key point here, really, because the Government is collectively responsible together. It is a team. It shares in its successes and failures together and, therefore, they are all at risk of being embarrassed when one Minister has a blunder that has to be exposed by Scrutiny. I can hear something buzzing. Is that mine? It is not going off. So, that is why I make the point. I offer Members the opportunity to either vote for what I consider to be the natural conclusion, or go for what might be considered a compromise, proposed by Deputy Labey . I think either would be a step forward from what we have now. I hope Members will vote for my amendment but, if not, I will certainly be voting for an unamended proposition from Deputy Labey . I ask for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

2. States  Assembly: selection  and  appointment of Ministers, Committees and  Panels - return to secret ballots (P.73/2017) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now return to the debate on the main proposition. Does any Member wish to speak on the main proposition? The Connétable of St. Helier .

1. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I  was  very  pleased  to  second   Deputy  Russell   Labey 's well-researched  and  well-explained proposition, particularly given that the introduction of the secret ballot was made by a former representative of St. Helier, the 7-term serving Philippe Baudains, whose enormous contribution to Island life and St. Helier life is marked by the bronze bust in Parade Gardens. I am sure Deputy Labey will be popping along there to see whether there is any similarity in profile. This happened at the end of the 19th century. I have not been able to find out exactly when but, as Members will know, people used to vote in elections in Jersey by turning up at the Parish church and putting up their hand for a candidate. Of course, enormous opportunities for all kinds of influence there. If you could not stop a person voting the wrong way that way, you could take them to the Écréhous and leave them there during the vote. [Laughter] I fully support this and I was very interested in how the Deputy explained how we got into the mess of these open ballots. I think his description of  the  period  in  States  life  when  that  happened  certainly  chimed  with  my  memory  of  it. Interestingly, the 2 most common introductions you get, or I get, when someone phones me on Parish business, the first one is: "I am a Jerseyman and .." or they say: "I am Jersey born and .." and I  interject at that point and say:  "Well, I  am  not  Jersey born, but  I  regard  myself as a Jerseyman. How can I help you?" The second one I get quite a lot is: "I voted for you, Constable, and .." and then I interject and say: "Well, I was not contested at the last election, so you probably did not vote for me at the last election, but hopefully that may change next year." The fact is how we vote really should not be a matter for anybody else but ourselves. It is a matter for us and our consciences. I think there are certainly times when one can be influenced by what, either people within this Assembly will think of us in terms of how we vote, or what people outside will think, who follow the States. My closing remark is simply to remind Members that a secret ballot does not guarantee secrecy or confidentiality. Some Members were in the House when I proposed a Member for the presidency of the Health Committee. It was a 4-way fight. When the totals were read out, he got one vote [Laughter] and every head in the Assembly turned to me. I do not know whether he was Deputy then, or Senator, Le Claire, but the former Member said in a marvellously quick-witted reaction: "I would like to thank everyone who voted for me." So, I hope secret ballots will come in, but they will not protect one in those circumstances.

2. Deputy A.D. Lewis :

As I think I said earlier, I am fully supportive of the Deputy 's proposition here. I just want to recount a little story, though. When I was first in this Assembly there was a secret ballot for Ministers, and Members and particularly the Council of Ministers then - it was the first Council of Ministers, in fact - were perfectly accepting that there would be a scalp. What they meant by that, was that there would be one pick that was not a pick of the Chief Minister and possibly sometimes

2. Senator Ozouf did say that that can have a very detrimental effectto an effective Government, but I have seen that effect swing both ways. I haveseen people come in that were unexpected, they have done a great job, and I have seen people that have been a bit more disruptive. But it doesgive the House that right to elect that person that would not have been the Chief Minister's first pick. I think that is a good thing. I have seen it happen in the first Council of Ministers and subsequent ones as well. The last one, I spoke to the Chief Minister after a particular vote and he said to me: "I had no idea having a secret ballot would have such an effectonthat particular vote." Some of you may remember what it was. I think having a secret ballot is democracy in action, really, in the way that the Constable of St. Helier mentioned. I will just read you a brief part ofthe Deputy 's proposition which I think is really key: "There is a reason why party leaders and Prime Ministers the world overtothisdayareelectedbymeansof a secret ballot andthat is to free both elector and candidate from the burden and scourge of any suggestion of favouritism, nepotism, preferential treatment, cronyismorporkbarrelling." [Interruption] That sums it up;notthebuzz,what I just said. It also goes on to say: "In this waythe public are better served by a secret ballot," which I firmly believe. "The secret ballot does not prevent any States Member from declaring how they intend to vote, or how they didvote. That is left to personal choice." I have seen that happen when there was a secret ballot. That used to happen. So by no means completely secret .. [Interruption] My iPhone is off, so it might be Deputy Tadier .

The Deputy Bailiff :

I wonder if everyone could just check their phones and devices to ensure that they are switched off, or in flight safe mode, or something.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes, I am waiting to speak.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I have already noted your desire to speak, Deputy . Deputy A.D. Lewis :

In other words, I would firmly support this motion. I would urge Members to do so. I think you will have a more effective Council of Ministers as a result. You will occasionally get that scalp, which I think is a good thing for an effective democracy in our particular Assembly, which is quite unique, not having full party politics. I think this provides some of that, so I would fully support and endorse the concept that Deputy Labey is proposing and I would urge other Members to do so.

3. Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not think I have heard such specious and spurious arguments since the last time we debated this, which is a few years ago. The Assembly clearly made a decision, at the time, to move from a situation where voting was done in secrecy, to where it was done in public. I think, that said, there are some potentially compelling arguments that Deputy Labey has made. It may well be true in certain circumstances that under secrecy, under the protection of secrecy, people behave differently to what they would without that secrecy and without the accountability. We know this and we have short memories, because there was this report that came out. This is the first volume of it, the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry. We stood here just a few weeks ago saying what can we do to make sure that the perception of secrecy .. and what can we do to make sure that we enhance democracy and that this connotation of the negative aspects of the Jersey way are countered, yet only a few weeks later we have somebody suggesting and Members in this Assembly saying: "Let us have more secrecy" because that is the way we counter the Jersey way, that is the way we strengthen our democracy, by having more secrecy. We are not a secret society, that is the difference. The members of the public, of course, have the right to vote in secret, to avoid coercion. We would not want a scenario where you have people going around stopping people and saying: "Look, you voted the wrong way. We are going to penalise you for that," because we all know where that potentially leads. So, while it might be the case that we might vote differently in secret, I think the argument has to come down on the side of accountability. Are there Members in this Assembly who would vote differently secretly to publicly? If there are, put your hands up now and tell the public that you would do that, because that is really worrying. I certainly would not. My vote would be exactly the same, whether it was done in secret, or in public. I did take part in one election for the Chief Minister, which was in secret, or it was not public, but I held up my ballot paper to the people in the Chamber upstairs, so that they could see it, if they wanted to, because I had absolutely nothing to hide. Similarly, the arguments that the Constable of St. Helier was making saying of course everybody comes up to you and says: "I voted for you" and you think: "Did you? I do not think you have ever lived in my District" but, of course, there is always an element of confusion for those of us who at one point stood for Senator. It is technically possible that people might have voted for us at some point in the past. Anyway, we are all too polite to correct them in an Island where 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, do not vote habitually anyway. But that

same argument can be used, of course, within this Assembly to say: "I voted for you, Minister." You can say that to both, or all of the candidates for any one post, of course. I do not think it enhances democracy. We are here to be accountable. If you extend the argument, where does it stop? Because we could say today if the vote that my colleague Deputy Mézec just proposed was done in secret, that might have won. It may well have won because certainly he had all the better arguments. We saw the arguments that he made that the Council of Ministers and the Assistant Ministers all stick together and vote in one way. That is exactly what happened today, but we would not know that. We would not know that if it was not done in public, so where do you end it? We could debate in secret because, of course, that is what the Council of Ministers say. They say it is important that we sit around a table and have secrecy so that we can have a free and frank exchange of views, because that is what we are taught to do.

[10:45]

So then we just shut down the Assembly completely and we say nobody is allowed to come in and watch and, of course, that is what used to happen in the past. That is what happened in other Parliaments before Hansard was produced. That was not the norm. People had to stand up and fight for democracy and fight for openness and transparency and I, for one, stood on a platform in 2008 of trust, transparency and teamwork. Hopefully, I will live up to that. Certainly, that is something that runs through our party manifesto. I implore Members not to take this retrograde step at a point when we should be putting the recommendations of the Care Inquiry at the centre of everything that we do, despite the fact that there may be some niche intellectual arguments that may be correct in some hypothetical cases. I think we all know that we are States Members and we should stand by our decisions and not be scared to be judged on our record.

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not know whether, or not, my de-ministerial position or broken ankle has meant that I have had a de-ministerial lobotomy, or something, but I agree absolutely with everything that Deputy Tadier has just said. I apologise to Deputy Russell Labey , who I like and respect, and also the Constable of St. Helier , because I understand their motivation and why they have said it and I do not think that any issue that Deputy Tadier has raised about the issue of secrecy should .. I do not want them to take affront, or exception to that. Indeed, the parts of the proposition are interesting, because I just asked the Deputy Greffier whether, or not, it was possible to take some parts of the proposition, (a) and (b), separately. Because I think that, certainly, I have not come to a firm conclusion on this, but I will not absolutely vote for a secret ballot for Chief Minister for the period of time that they are Ministers nominated in secret. I think that would be a terrible retrograde step for the reasons that Deputy Tadier raised. Also, referring to my earlier comments about the problems whether, or not, there were parties, or hidden parties. The one thing that one knows, if you have a public vote for Chief Minister, is who voted for the Chief Minister. An absence of parties, you do not know who that coalition is. I can see Deputy Southern agreeing with me; I am getting worried [Laughter] but I absolutely agree with them. I am not about to join Reform Jersey; they would not have me, I know. But they are right. They are absolutely right; the secretism of the issues that the Care Inquiry raises, the real fundamental issues about that negative connotation of the Jersey way of secretism. I am sorry that certain Members did not see there was a fantastic art exhibition across at the gallery of a photographer in residence by the Société Jersiaise, a wonderful young artist, Jonny Briggs, who did some work - I do not know how many Members saw it - who came to Jersey and got the sense of Jersey and took the words that the Chief Minister used after the Care Inquiry and did some fantastic art about effectively what secrecy is. One very striking figure, effectively a shocking figure, was an arm coming out of somebody's mouth that indicates that they were being forced to do something, because of some other force. Secretism in terms of the vote of Chief Minister, I am afraid, is going to go down in the public like a lead balloon, and rightly so. Deputy Labey , in his report, mentions the Freedom of Information Law and while we do not like the Freedom of Information Law, there are issues about the Freedom of Information Law that need to be dealt with, because I can say that it is not working, because effectively things are just getting hidden underground. Rather than being more open, I suspect the way the Freedom of Information Law is working means that things are less open than before, because the information does not exist at all, because it is not documented. So, by doing something that appears to be the right thing in the first order, that looks right, that is going to improve democracy, could have a countervailing, much more powerful effect. I can see some Members nodding in agreement. It would be a terrible decision, in absence of a party-political system where the Chief Minister is very clearly aligned with certain people but is open, to then have a secret ballot in relation to nobody would know who the leader of the Government was. That would be a retrograde step. Now, the reason why I would just consider whether, or not, there are potential arguments for secret ballots to some of the other positions, potentially the chair of P.P.C. and potentially Scrutiny Panel, there I may be persuadable that there may be a reason. I would be interested to hear other Members' observations. There may be a reason why, effectively, a secret ballot may be the right thing to do. I am sorry, if this offends you, Sir, but, as you know, I do and will be supporting - and again nothing personally against you - a separation of powers. But, if we do come to an election of a Speaker, for example, I am not sure whether that position should be an open ballot, or not. I am not sure, I have not thought through the consequences of that. I am not sure about that. But certainly the chairman of the planning panel, I am sorry, that has to be open. You cannot have a secret ballot for a chairman of a planning panel having the power of the planning panel and the massive, massive financial benefit on that decision can take. You cannot have it for the Chief Minister and you cannot have it for Ministers. So, I am afraid to say, I understand the proper, well-intentioned and I am not being in any way disparaging, or in any way being patronising to Deputy Russell Labey , but I cannot vote for this on the basis of that, but would consider a part of it if there were some compelling argument, perhaps, for some positions such as the chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

5. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Before I start, I would like to apologise to Constables in the Chamber and to say that I have worked with many Constables in my time in Scrutiny and always got on famously. At the end of the day, we have always agreed a form of words, which we can accept and be 100 per cent behind as part of the art of effective Scrutiny. So, I say that in order that I should not have 12 Constables refusing to vote for what I am about to say, because I think I just did that to my partner, Deputy Mézec , in the last vote. Having said that, this is absolutely crystal clear. If we were to accept the reinstatement of a secret ballot, it would be a completely retrograde step for democracy and I absolutely 100 per cent agree with my normal opponent, Senator Ozouf , on this single issue. It is because we do not have a fully-fledged political-party system where political parties put forward policies before the electorate and say: "If I am elected, or if you put your trust in me, then I will do these things." We know, by and large, that does not happen. So, people can stand up and say simply: "I am a good bloke and I am a good businessman, vote for me," or they can say: "Vote for me and I will support our old people and I will support our children and I will support our families and I will support our employees." Do you want a secret ballot, then, on taking £10 million out of benefits? Changing the disregard on pensions, removing £14 a week from single parents, thus putting children in poverty figures, do you want a secret ballot on that? "How did you vote on that?" Would the public out there, who voted for us, wish that to happen? It is not an enormous step to say: "What I did was I voted for this Minister, this Chief Minister, even though I knew what he was going to do, because he finally came up with some policies, one of which was reducing £10 million from the benefits bill, one of which was ignoring the calls for a living wage, one of which was keeping down the minimum wage, et cetera, one of which was freezing the pay of our civil servants, teachers, nurses, et cetera. You do not get to know how I voted on those, so when I stand again I will just say: I am a good bloke, vote for me.'" Again, I will say: "I will support the old people, I will support the young people, I will support families and I will support our employees" while doing entirely the opposite. Now, this is why our system does not work. This is why 70 per cent of potential voters do not turn out, because there is absolutely no connection between what people do when they get in and what they say on the hustings before they get there. No connection between my vote and what happens. Part of that openness, which is the only way the electorate can understand what is going on: "You said you would do this. You did not; in fact, you did the opposite." The only way we can make that connection, at least my vote counts for something, involves also the vote for Chief Minister, because, often, the candidates for Chief Minister are the

ones that attempt to put some meat on the bones of their: "I will look after the old folks." That is the reality; that is the problem with our system. Our system is broken and the people out there know it. There is absolutely very little connection between their vote and what happens in this Chamber, including who gets to be Chief Minister with what little bundle of policies they have got. If we were to revert to a secret ballot, then the people out there will not even know that and that would be a crying shame. Next time I am knocking on doors and people say to me: "I used to vote. I do not vote anymore, it does not make any difference", I will be forced to say: "Yes, and, what is worse, even the vote for the most important place in this Chamber" - is it? - well, perhaps: "the