States Meeting Transcript - 31st January 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 31st JANUARY 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................3

1. Future Hospital Funding Strategy (as amended) (P.130/2016...........................3

1.1 Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.3

2. Vote of No Confidence: States Employment Board (P.137/2016)........................4

2.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................4

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................12
2. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John : ....................................................15
3. Senator P.M. Bailhache : ................................................................16
4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:...........................................17
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................20
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................23
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................27
8. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................28

9. Deputy S.M. Brée:......................................................................31
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................33
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................35

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................37

12. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................38
13. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen : ....................................................41
14. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier:....................................................42
15. Senator A.K.F. Green:...............................................................43
16. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .....................................................48
17. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................48
18. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................50
19. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................57
20. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................58
21. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................61
22. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................37
23. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................68

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................77

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

1. Future Hospital Funding Strategy (as amended) (P.130/2016)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now come on to Public Business. The first item of Public Business is the Future Hospital Funding Strategy, P.130/2016, as amended.  At the  last  meeting the  Assembly  agreed under Standing  Order  79  to request  that  Corporate  Services  Scrutiny  Panel  consider  having  the proposition referred to it. So, vice-chairman, can you advise whether your panel wishes to review the proposition?

1.1 Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement (Vice-Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

Thank you very much. Yes, the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel does wish to review the proposition. A number of things came up at the debate, which increased the workload that the panel believes needs to be done for this review. This is a review covering a very important area and a lot of other things were brought up during the debate and I would particularly like to thank the Deputy of St. John for raising the issue of the Public Finances Law question, which directed the panel in a certain direction to look at as well. As such, bearing in mind the magnitude of the work that we have to do and the importance of this review, the panel would like to propose that the proposition is brought back for debate on Tuesday, 18th April.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Those in favour of adopting the proposition to bring it back on 18th April kindly show.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : Can we have the appel please? The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel is called for and I invite Members to return to their seats if they have left them. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. The vote is on whether or not to agree that this matter comes back before the Assembly on 18th April.

2. Vote of No Confidence: States Employment Board (P.137/2016) The Deputy Bailiff :

The next item is the Vote of No Confidence: States Employment Board lodged by Deputy Higgins and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion that they have no confidence in the States Employment Board.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Before I ask the Deputy to move the proposition could I advise Members that Standing Orders allow subjects of a proposition of no confidence to speak a second time, should they wish, before the conclusion of the debate. I understand the Chief Minister proposes to speak only once during the debate but in light of the provisions of the Standing Order I will call upon him to speak last. Once every other Member who wishes to has spoken I will call the Chief Minister to speak and once the Chief Minister has spoken then Deputy Higgins will be in a positon to reply. That is in accordance with Standing Orders. Members will be aware that the Bailiff provided guidance to Members which was circulated by email about the conduct of this debate and the application of the sub judice rules under Standing Orders. Consequently, while I am not minded to direct Members not to refer to the case involving Mr. Alwitry nevertheless of course this Assembly is not an appropriate venue to decide questions of law or indeed liability, and Members should not refer directly to the contents of any pleading put forward by Mr. Alwitry to the court or put arguments as to whether his case should or should not be successful. But it is fair to comment on the case in the context of the proposition before the Assembly at the moment. Deputy Higgins.

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

Just  a  few  comments  to  say  first.   Just  to  point  out  to  Members  that  I  have  not  had  any communication with Mr. Alwitry. I have no knowledge of what his orders of justice claim so I will not be referring to anything I believe that is in his pleadings. I am doing it basically on the information that we have received.  I hope Members have been reading their homework. Now we have had 531 pages of information in 3 documents, plus we have had probably about another 200

pages in others. It is tremendously detailed, lots of counterarguments and so on, but I am not planning on going through it all. The number of Members who when they saw the lectern thought it is going to be a very long speech, it will not be because essentially at the root of this thing it is quite simple. However, I will apologise to Members in advance that I do not have a written speech because I have been spending my time going through all this and reading it in detail. As Members are aware, votes of no confidence are very rare occurrences and they are not brought lightly. I brought this vote of no confidence to the States Employment Board and the Health Department for a number of reasons. Firstly, the findings of the States of Jersey Complaints Board.  Now their report is very thorough ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

I am sorry, I do hesitate to interrupt you but did you say you have brought a vote of no confidence against the Health Board?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

It is implied in the Health Department because although the States .. sorry, the States Employment Board oversee employment in the Island, the faults that have been perpetuated in the Health Department have been endorsed pretty well by the States Employment Board. So it is the States Employment Board that I am attacking, in particular.

The Deputy Bailiff :

To the extent of course that any criticism of the States Employment Board is founded upon a criticism of the Health Board over which they supervise then that seems to be a legitimate point of view to raise, but I would not wish to see this conflated into an attack on the Health Board of itself as opposed to the States Employment Board, which this clearly is.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I shall be addressing the deficiencies of the Health Department and the fact that the States Employment Board have done nothing about it. So going back then, the first reason I brought the vote of no confidence was because of the findings of the States of Jersey Complaints Board. Now they stated that the States Employment Board deliberately and unlawfully chose to breach Mr. Alwitry's contract of employment by summarily dismissing him in what can only be described as remarkable circumstances. At almost every stage of the process, before and after the decision summarily to dismiss Mr. Alwitry, was flawed. It also stated that the board agreed with contemporaneous descriptions of the procedure or lack of it, that was followed in Mr. Alwitry's case, as "appallingly shabby". In the detail of the report they talk about the actions of the small number of clinicians and managers at the hospital who basically were responsible for his dismissal, that they acted as if they were a kangaroo court. These are very, very serious statements made by the States Complaints Board, and I believe they needed to be aired. In the States in the past we have had questions and answers on this case and we do not even scratch the surface. I felt that it is important, win or lose, that this matter is put out there in the public so the people can get the facts of what has been going on. My second reason for bringing the proposition is the fact that the States Employment Board and the hospital are in denial that they have done anything substantially wrong.

[9:45]

The third reason: because they have smeared Mr. Alwitry's name in an attempt to justify their actions against him. Fourthly, because they have attempted to denigrate the work of the States Complaints Board in the same way that the Council of Ministers try to rubbish or call into question Scrutiny Panel reports and recommendations. In other words, it is easier to attack than address the issues. Fifthly, because if the States Employment Board are not held to account for their actions no existing or future public sector employee can be certain that their contractual rights will be upheld

by the States Employment Board, and that I think is a major consideration in this. I might add, I am going to say this now before I forget it, I would like each Member of the States Employment Board, and they have been listed in the proposition at the back of it, those who are members of the original States Employment Board when the Alwitry case was dealt with, and those currently, to explain their role in the actions that they have taken. I think it is absolutely essential that they should because there is confusion as to how they were consulted. Was it by email? What information they had and whether they received all the letters that had been sent, for example, to the Chief Minister or the Minister for Health. Let me address first of all the denial aspect of a reason for bringing it forward. Now the States Employment Board, as far as I am concerned, are in total denial that they have done anything wrong at all. The reason I say this: if we look at their terminology they have said in the evidence they have given to the Complaints Board, and every other document I have seen, that they withdrew the offer that had been made through Mr. Alwitry. Any G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education) student or any student of law, who studied law of contract, knows that if you have an offer made to a person, which they accept unconditionally and they have the capacity to enter into the contract, and there is consideration, then you have a binding contract. What existed at the time that the board consented to the hospital terminating his contract was that they broke it. That is what it is. Not a withdrawal of an offer. That is just words. It is just terminology. It is just trying to confuse people. There was a valid contract in existence, which was reneged upon by the States. They have tried to hide it in all the documents they have. They have never really come out and said: "We broke his contract." Not only did they break it, they broke it deliberately. They knew what they were doing. In all these documents you will find references here and there about law officers or compensation. They knew what they were doing but they tried to hide it from the public that they were deliberating breaking a contract that had been validly entered into. The second reason they are in denial is they keep on mentioning that there was some procedural problem. Slight one-liners. Procedures were not all that good or there were errors in procedure and so on. The truth of the matter is there was no procedure at all. Mr. Alwitry was basically given absolutely no chance to answer any of the criticisms that had been put. In fact, he did not even know about the criticism. This is the most scandalous thing of all. A small group of doctors and clinicians got together and discussed the matter and, in fact, they were saying that he

was a troublemaker, that he was asking too many questions, he was raising patient safety issues. All sorts of things. But the most damning one of all, was the fact that they thought he had made a complaint against Mr. Downes, the clinical director, to the B.M.A. (British Medication Association) and they had not. They had no reason to believe it other than through their own stupidity of not asking the B.M.A., as I will come to later. So far as this is concerned then, what I am saying is: that Mr. Alwitry was denied natural justice. He did not know what reasons they were using for rescinding his contract. He was given no chance to explain his part of the issue and he was given no right of appeal. I might add, and this is one of my major criticisms of the S.E.B. (States Employment Board), the S.E.B. are the people who are responsible for all public sector workers. They will probably claim that: "Oh no, we delegated authority to the chief officer of the hospital." The truth of the matter is they may have delegated these powers but they still have a supervisory role. In other words, the Ministers are responsible for making sure that these departments and chief officers, follow the codes of practice, follow the law, and so on. We have an Employment Law from 2003 which gives rights to people. We put out codes of practice which should be followed. My criticism of the States Employment Board is a decision was made to terminate his employment but they did not ask or look at the process by which his employment was terminated. They have a responsibility to make sure that every single employee of the States is treated fairly and appropriately and they totally failed to carry out that duty. So let me also mention too that in terms of process. So they broke his contract, he had no right of hearings, he had no right of appeal. All these things I put at the door of the S.E.B. They should have been making sure that everything was done properly. Now my third reason for bringing forward this proposition is the fact that they have smeared Mr. Alwitry's name in the attempt to justify their actions against him. In evidence of this, I would like to say that what we have had here was the situation, if we look at some of the things that went on in the hospital. I am going to quote from 2 statements that have been made. These are emails that Mr. Tony Riley, who was the Health and Social Services H.R. (Human Resources) director. His first one was on 13th November to Miss. Julie Garbutt, the C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer).

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

Excuse me, Sir, a point of order. I am just wondering whether we should be referring to actual people's names.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , if you could refer to, when you wish to refer to people by their titles, their job descriptions that would surely be quite sufficient for Members to understand who they are and not be named in the Assembly when they have no right of reply is obviously something we should avoid as possible.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

With respect, Sir, these are already included in all these documents. There are a few of them that vets them out but they are named and these are public documents so they are within the public realm. Besides that, I cannot remember their titles anyway. I have got the names but not the title.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

I could assist, it is the Head of Human Resources at the hospital.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Deputy , you were able to say .. you mentioned the gentleman's name and then you gave his title. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

In this particular case but I do not in every case.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Those where you can would you please do so.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I will try to apply it that way. In his letter to the chief executive officer of Health and Social Services, he said: "We have offered Mr. Alwitry the post of consultant in [I cannot pronounce it, I am going to have trouble with this. I am going to say as an eye specialist. I am sorry, I just cannot pronounce the thing] with a December start date. His behaviour and attitude since accepting the post have been atrocious and the medical directors, clinical director, Andrew, Angela and me and my team are agreed to withdraw job offer." That is 13th November. The States Complaints Board stated that this email was grossly misleading and they stated: "On the evidence before us there is no basis, and we mean no basis, for the allegation that Mr. Alwitry's behaviour had been atrocious. The email should not have been sent in the terms that it was." On 15th November the H.R. Director from the Health Department sent an email to the H.R. Director for the States of Jersey asking the States Employment Board to clear the way for the decision to be enacted. He wrote: "Although an excellent candidate with a strong C.V. (curriculum vitae), excellent references and an impressive interview performance his behaviour and attitude since receiving the offer have been consistently adversarial, aggressive, inappropriate, duplicitous, unco-operative and frankly unacceptable. This behaviour has been directed at senior managers and senior doctors, H.R. staff and other clinical professionals in other services. He has now engaged the B.M.A. to support a formal complaint about the clinical director. Even before he started in his post. The clinical director, not altogether unreasonably, has indicated that he would feel obliged to resign as clinical director if the offer is not withdrawn. We are content that his behaviour constitutes a loss of trust and confidence so fundamental as to undermine a contract of employment. The proposed course of action has some risks and consequences." He mentions they are outlined below. "But these would have to be managed and in reality would have a relatively short shelf life." Considering we are 4 years later they were mistaken on that. "Following a discussion with the Law Office the litigation risk is deemed to be acceptable. The maximum legal remedy would be 3 months' notice and any incurred costs associated with a move to Jersey. We believe these to be nil or de minimis at this point. When he came before this Complaints Board, Mr. Riley declined to answer questions about the inclusion of such comments in the letter and the reasonable inference was taken that the alleged complainant and potential resignation was to smear Dr. Alwitry's character and to add weight to the cause that he should be dismissed summarily." With regard to matters of patient safety, which are part of Mr. Alwitry's case, Mr. Riley stated that: "Dr. Alwitry's concerns regarding patient safety were exaggerated and were merely a smokescreen." The board said: "The board referred to various letters from medical professionals which appear to support Mr. Alwitry's views." Mr. Riley dismisses these alleging that they had been written by Mr. Alwitry's mates. These are some of the most respected eye surgeons in some of the hospitals in the U.K. The States Complaints Board also stated: "It is also aggravating that the hospital took the steps it did after he had raised legitimate patient safety concerns, which is his duty as a doctor and beneficial for the hospital as a whole." Basically what they are coming to is, there was no investigation of the patient safety concern. Mr. Riley said: "There was a discussion with his clinical colleagues", the ones who made the decision to get rid of him and they determined that there was no patient safety concern, and that is totally unacceptable. If one thinks that allegations are made by a consultant surgeon about patient safety they should be investigated and the B.M.A. and the other authorities would expect them to be

investigated. They have not.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I am loath to interrupt the Deputy but ..

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am not giving way. You can make your point later. The Deputy Bailiff :

Is it a point of order or a point of ..?

Senator I.J. Gorst :

It is quite difficult because the Deputy is saying no investigation of patient safety has been carried out.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Well, you can correct me later.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is not a point of order, that is a point for you to make in speeches. Senator A.K.F. Green:

While we do have a break, could I ask that the Deputy refrain from using staff members' names all the time. Those staff members cannot answer. [Approbation]

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The individuals are named in public documents. They are all over the documentation that we have got and it is all public so to mention a name in this particular case is not vital to anybody's reputation because they are named in these documents, all over the place.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Standing Order is 104(2)(i) and it says: "A Member of the States must not refer to any individual who is not a Member of the States by name, unless use of the individual's name is unavoidable and of direct relevance to the business being discussed." In my view, given that the proposition is put in part on the S.E.B.'s failure to oversee the Health Department and the actions of the Health Department in and about this, then it is, I construe, that an individual's name, the use of it is unavoidable and is of direct relevance and accordingly if the Deputy is unable to use a title then he can use a name in order to explain the position.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Will the Chair give us 10 minutes to go and find out what everybody's role is so we do not fall into this trap of naming them?

The Deputy Bailiff :

No, Deputy , I have agreed with you. I have said that names can be used in the circumstances because in my view they are unavoidable and of direct relevance to the business in question and are within Standing Orders.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

My apologies.

The Deputy Bailiff :

But, Deputy , that is not to say if you know the title you should not use it in preference to the name. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I shall try and use the title, if I can.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed.

[10:00]

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

What I am trying to say is part of the reason for bringing this is the smear on Mr. Alwitry. He was doing his duty as a doctor to bring forward concerns and although I know that probably the S.E.B. will say: "Oh, we commissioned a paper by the former Solicitor General and he dismissed it", well, I am sorry, the former Solicitor General, his report is not that brilliant either. He makes statements somewhere where he says there were patient concerns but he came to a different conclusion. However, the point is, they should have been investigated. Now what I will say though, and this is you could argue in favour of the S.E.B., the Complaints Board felt that the letters that the human relations director of the hospital put forward were misleading and may have misled senior management and the States Employment Board. To be perfectly honest, I would have expected, and this is one of the criticisms I have of the S.E.B. is when they were told of what was going on they should have looked at the process and what was being said and satisfied themselves that they knew what was going on. In fact, within a very short period of time they knew that there were counterarguments coming in. Shortly I will be circulating a letter from one of the consultants in the hospital where he raised issues about the way that Mr. Alwitry was being dealt with and also the fact that he had not been given a proper hearing, and also many of his concerns were correct. So I think to sum up that particular section is I happen to believe that, as in many things, these particular clincians and mangers decided to get rid of him. I will make an interesting comment as well. There were about 5 of them involved, only 2 of them were ever involved in communications with Mr. Alwitry, written communications. Basically a lot of the information was coming from 2 sources. One was the clinical director, and I have to name him, it is Mr. Downes, because he plays a central role in this, and also Mr. McLaughlin who is the managing director of the hospital. They were the ones who had the main dealings with Mr. Alwitry. It is their comments that are being fed back into what was basically a gossiping type thing. There were no facts supporting them, it is just them talking. Only 2 people were involved in the major discussions. My fourth reason for bringing the vote of no confidence is the fact that the S.E.B. through their responses is trying to denigrate and rubbish, I would argue, the work of the States Complaints Board. The argument that has been levelled against them is that they did not follow their own terms of reference and that they did not allow the S.E.B. to introduce new evidence. Well, first of all there is a lot of conversation in the documents stating that the secretary to the States Complaints Board sent out what the terms of reference were and how they would be dealing with them. But the bottom line of the role is to determine whether the procedure that was followed was fair. They primarily are not concerned with the merits of the case. They are concerned with what was the procedure that was followed and was it fair, and in fact if I just mention some of the other complaints we had. The Deputy of St. Ouen can verify the role of the Complaints Board if he wishes to. I will set it out: "During hearings the board of 3 panel members assess cases and determine whether in accordance with the Administrative Decisions Review (Jersey) Board 1982 a decision or action of a States body is contrary to law: was it unjust? Oppressive? Or improperly discriminatory? Was it based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact? Could what they have done not have been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of all the facts, or was it contrary to the generally accepted principles of natural justice." Now, although there are complaints from the States Employment Board that they moved away from the terms just bear in mind that is their role to implement the procedure and make sure things have been done fairly. In other words, people have the right to natural justice. If someone has made a complaint against them they should know what the complaint was. They should be given the opportunity to answer the charge that is against them and explain their side, and they should have an appeal. The States Employment Board, in their

case, put forward no justification of the procedure that was followed. Why? Because there was not a procedure. He was not given any of those rights, it was determined by the 5 doctors and clinicians. They were the ones who decided to get rid of him and then they gave these exaggerated or misleading justifications to the S.E.B. and the end result was Mr. Alwitry was so they reneged on his contract. What the S.E.B. did, however, was to put forward what they argued were the merits of the case. We have all these reasons why this guy was a troublemaker, that basically he

was giving us a hard time because he was writing lots of memos, he was doing this and that, and so on. The point is the States Complaints Board is not a tribunal, they are not there to determine the facts and determine whether the hospital is right or the S.E.B. are right, or Mr. Alwitry is right. Their role is to look at the procedure and they did that. However, where they are being criticised is the fact that the States Employment Board spent so much time on the merits and they were making certain allegations, and the States Complaints Board pointed out that on the basis of the evidence that they saw they did not think the merit stood up. That is what they did not like because someone was challenging them. They were relying essentially on the Solicitor General's report and some other things which came after the fact. So, as I say, they have been criticising the Complaints Board for their own failures essentially. They could have brought an argument that they followed a procedure but as they had not they could not argue it. So therefore there was no evidence that they had done anything correctly. All they tried to do is keep on saying the ends justify the means. We think this guy is a bad actor, we have all these reasons for getting rid of him and that is good enough. They also state at various times: "We would succeed in a court or some tribunal because

we have all these facts." The truth of the matter was there was no testing of anything they put forward. No one had heard the evidence they put forward and had a chance to cross-examine or to question it. The whole thing was a charade. In addition to this just look at the tactics of the Minister for Health who, I assume, was working directly for the S.E.B. because it is put out together. The report of the Complaints Board was put to the States on 4th July 2016. You have seen the size of the documents and so on. The Minister put out, on 11th July, a week later, a press release criticising what the States Complaints Board had done. Basically there was criticising and it gave the impression to the States Complaints Board that they were not taking any of the matters seriously, they were not looking at their findings, they were not looking at their recommendations. All they were trying to do again was to justify the unjustifiable. We know this well because if anybody criticises the Council of Ministers or comes up with a negative report, including Scrutiny, we find they immediately start attacking back. It is part of the process. Just remember who these people are. The States Complaints Board is made up of individuals who have volunteered their time, they are not paid. The 3 members of the panel include 2 advocates, one who is a Queen's Counsel, and they are very professional people. They have gone about their work in the most diligent way and yet they are trying to criticise these people in the same way they tried to criticise States Members who bring up something they do not like or a Scrutiny Panel who brings up something they do not like or recommendations they do not like. I think that is totally unacceptable. Why would anybody want to volunteer to play a role in assisting the States and do this particular role - which is trying to look at the facts and try to point out where they failed the people who have come forward. So my view here is that the attacks on the States Complaints Board are unwarranted and wrong. Now, my fifth argument in bringing the vote of no confidence was because if the States Employment Board are not held to account for their actions then no existing or future employee of the States, or anybody for that matter who is dealing with the States

I am dealing with people at the present time who have been badly wronged by a States department. What happens? They have to fight them. Not matter the strength of their argument or the justice on it, we end up having a system where individuals have to act as litigants in person because they cannot afford the legal charges and yet we use the Solicitor General or the Attorney General or Crown Advocates paid for out of taxpayers' money to rubbish these people and their arguments. Now, that is not acceptable. I think we need bodies like the States Complaints Board who will be fearless and are prepared to put forward the arguments without bias. They are not biased people, they have looked at the evidence and they have come to the conclusions they have.

They should not be being attacked by this States Employment Board. As I said, who in the States at the present time can believe that they will be treated properly by the States Employment Board. If Mr. Alwitry did not even know the charges that were against him, was not given a hearing and was not given an appeal, and bearing in mind the law states we have codes of practice for disciplinary and other proceedings, which the States are supposed to be overseeing, the law says that they should have a right to be heard and yet we have totally ignored that. The States are supposed to be, as I see it anyway, the best of employers, it should be setting the example that we expect all others in the private sector follow and they have not. They have basically ignored all their own rules, all their own guidance and allowed this guy to be effectively stitched up. That, I think, is totally unforgiveable. I am going to stop at this point because I have made these criticisms of them and I will be interested to hear what they say and I will obviously use some more of the details I have.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is that a point of order? I am sorry. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I might add that I am pleased that Deputy Pryke is going to speak first. She was the Minister for Health at the time and I would very much like her to tell us what she was told by the human relations director from the hospital, what information she had from the other consultants who were at the hospital, what information she received from B.M.A. and what information she received from the other people who are supporting Mr. Alwitry's claim. Then I would like to know, why was it that they appear to have caved in from, first of all, Mr. Downes the clinical director threatening to resign and later on 14th January, 4 of the clinicians threatening to resign if Mr. Alwitry was reinstated. I look forward to hearing each member of States Employment Board explaining their role in this whole sorry saga.

Senator A.K.F. Green:

Sir, can I seek a point of clarification from Deputy Higgins? The Deputy made references to several patient safety concerns, could he please be specific so we know what we are dealing with?

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I will mention just one in particular, I can dig out the others for later if necessary. Mr. Alwitry mentioned about operations on a Friday. Certain serious operations affecting eye patients which he wanted to make sure there was a back-up on the Saturday to deal with any complications that may arise, that the person might have to go back into theatre. That is just one. The point about that is we keep on getting from the States Employment Board different versions of what goes on. They have mentioned in their own report how glaucoma patients could be dealt with on a Tuesday and also that there were not many of them. None of this information was put to Mr. Alwitry at the time. So he was making his concerns based on the timetable that they were putting forward. Anyway, we will address these things later on.

[10:15]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] The Deputy of Trinity .

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I had the privilege of being elected by this Assembly as Minister for Health and Social Services in April 2009, where I became the third Minister in 2 years following Senator Ben Shenton and Senator Jimmy Perchard. I was Minister for Health and Social Services until the election in 2014. In my first period as Minister for Health and Social Services I was supported by Deputy Noel and Deputy Judy Martin. In a second term as Minister I was again supported by Deputy Martin and also by the Constable of St. Peter, Constable John Refault, who took a particular role, Assistant Minister for Hospital Services. I have set this out in some detail as it is important to realise that I took on the role of Minister during a very challenging and difficult time for the department and in particular the hospital. Between 2006 and 2009 not only had there been considerable instability in the political leadership of Health and Social Services but our hospital had endured a very difficult, indeed, tragic period with 2 patients having died while undergoing surgical procedures. So I make no apology here for majoring on the theme of patient safety in this debate. Many in this Chamber today will recall that Verita had been commissioned in 2009 to report on the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a staff nurse in theatre in 2006. During 2011 Professor Aitkenhead was commissioned by the Health and Safety Inspectorate to report on clinical governance issues in relation to the death of a gentleman in 2008. As a result of the political instability and the tragic deaths and subsequent review by Verita, I inherited a department and a hospital where morale was very low and all the staff, both clinical and non-clinical, were having to acknowledge some significant failings and address some key challenges if confidence in the quality and safety of our hospital was to be restored in the eyes of the public who relied upon it. Verita, in its report of January 2010, found longstanding organisational weakness that made for an unsafe patient environment in the hospital on the day that that lady died. Verita also found that at the time of her death hospital systems of risk assessment and risk management were inadequate. Verita found that despite the dedication and skill of many of its staff in 2006 the hospital had an undeveloped culture of patient safety and governance. They evidenced a lack of policies and procedures and unwillingness to report serious incidents and a blame-orientated environment. Verita also found that distant senior management did not engage well with senior medical staff or provide sufficient leadership of the organisation. Verita found that medical management structures were relatively unsophisticated. Verita also found a longstanding culture in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of individual rather than team working. Their strong impression was of senior practitioners working in relative isolation. This did not allow for regular and timely communication between the 3 consultants. In general, communications between individual and hospital departments were poor and Verita stressed the importance of medical and non-medical managers working together to develop a shared sense of purpose. What a report. The Verita was published in early 2010, it contained 30 recommendations. Of particular note in relation to the debate today they proposed the appointment of a hospital director - there had not been one before - to concentrate on the running of the hospital enabling the chief officer to concentrate on corporate and strategic matters. The appointment of a medical director to review roles, responsibilities and authority of clinical directors in order to strengthen their parts, the clinical parts, in running the hospital. That the chief officer and consultant body should continue to encourage openness about matters to do with patient safety. That the chief officer should ensure that organisational arrangements are in place to support good corporate and clinical governance. I am pleased to say that all the recommendations were put in place. Towards the end of 2010 I commissioned Verita again to return to undertake a review as I wanted to be sure and indeed reassure this Assembly and the public that good progress had been made. I was pleased to report then and now that they found good evidence of progress against all the recommendations. However, it was particularly relevant to note, given our consideration today of the decisions in relation to Mr. Alwitry, that Verita has stated they were mindful of the scale of change they had recommended and that some aspects,

particularly those involving behaviours and cultures, would be achieved over a much longer period. In July 2011 to March 2012 Professor Aitkenhead reflected in his report on medical staffing issues, risk management, clinical management and leadership. He concluded that the importance of clinical governance had been recognised by the hospital and many steps had been taken to manage it more effectively. He considered that safety in clinical areas in the hospital was improving and commended the plans and structures that management had developed would improve safety significantly over the coming years. However, this was in 2012 very much work in progress. Professor Aitkenhead also reported that some staff felt there was pressure by some politicians and the press not to exclude a doctor following a serious untoward incident, although he was reassured by the hospital director and the H.R. that all appropriate options are utilised in such cases. He also reflected on the General Medical Council's documents, good medical practice, which, among a number of duties of all doctors, includes working with colleagues in a way that best serves patients, patient's interests and a duty to be honest and open and act with integrity. Furthermore, Professor Aitkenhead noted that there was a States of Jersey whistle-blowing policy in existence and at that time in 2011 the department was working on specific guidelines for its own staff. He also confirmed that when the clinical appraisal process was implemented during 2012 and 2013 an assessment of probity and behaviour would be part of the process. States Members, I feel I have laboured in my reflections on Verita and the Aitkenhead report, and the dreadful circumstances that led to them being commissioned. But my point is that all the department staff, but particularly the senior clinicians who had stepped up to clinical leadership roles, and the expert senior managers who had been recruited to lead the organisation forward and restore confidence in the safety of clinical services in the hospital, are part way through but by no means at the end of the journey. It is relatively easy to write policies and procedures, it is relatively straightforward to devise structures and set up committees, however it takes far longer for staff to develop the confidence to speak up, to adapt to new ways of working consistently, to communicate and work well in teams. This is about culture and culture can and does take years to establish and even longer to change. So by the time the department started the recruitment process for the third consultant ophthalmologist in mid-2012 good progress had been made in strengthening clinical and corporate governance policies and procedures, clinical leadership was in place and beginning to flourish, communication throughout the organisation was also improving. However, it was still relatively early days, this recovery was fragile and the senior clinical and non-clinical leaders needed time and consistency of involvement and behaviours to ensure the change was embedded. Let me make it quite clear, there was no doubt the recruitment process that led to the selection of Mr. Alwitry for the post of consultant ophthalmologist was not as robust as it should be. These issues were highlighted in both the Beal and the Solicitor General's report which was commissioned by the S.E.B. and have been acted upon. Since 2012 Health and Social Services have very successfully recruited over 20 new consultants, including 3 ophthalmologists. Let me also be very clear that the reason for rescinding the offer of employment was no reflection on Mr. Alwitry's clinical skills. Contrary to the belief of some people, this decision was not taken because a couple of senior doctors had fallen out over private practice. Neither was it because Mr. Alwitry had tried to negotiate aspects of his job plan. Negotiation is part of the process before a new consultant takes up the post. No, it was the way Mr. Alwitry went about this negotiation. The behaviour he displayed, the lack of consideration for any interest other than his own, that was the heart of the problem. His were not actions of a good team player. The decision was certainly not linked to any claims by Mr. Alwitry in relation to patient safety. Paul Beal and the Solicitor General in the basis of their interviews stated clearly that there was no patient safety issue. The British Medical Association and the General Medical Council have both indicated that the dispute between the hospital and Mr. Alwitry related to employment matters and not patient safety. Members may have noticed in the papers provided by the States Employment Board to States Members that there is a briefing note from the current hospital managing director that clearly explains the potential safety issue raised by Mr. Alwitry and explains the operating schedule offered by the hospital enabled the potential risk to be successfully managed. Interestingly, this was confirmed in an email exchange between Mr. Alwitry and the hospital in which he set out the potential problem and the variety of different options for managing the potential risk, 2 of which were options provided by the job plan offered by the hospital. As Members know, I was a practising nurse for over 30 years and patient safety and patient care has led me to accept the challenge of leading the department forward in those very dark days leading to the publication of the Verita report. To put it plainly, I would never ever compromise patient safety

or knowingly allow others to do so. [10:30]

For example, when a well-regarded local G.P. (general practitioner) raised potential safety concerns I immediately met with him to seek details so that an urgent investigation could be undertaken. I also asked the managing director and the medical director of the hospital to meet urgently with the G.P. This took place within 24 hours. However, the G.P. concerned was unable to furnish evidence or details of any specific issues to enable an investigation to take place. So when the senior clinical and management leaders in the hospital approached me to highlight their concerns about the behaviour and approach of Mr. Alwitry I sought an urgent briefing for myself and my Assistant Ministers. But I needed to be sure myself. I followed this up, I spent at least a full afternoon reading the copious email correspondence and other evidence to understand for myself the issues raised and I was continued to be fully briefed. It was clear that Mr. Alwitry's actions and behaviour fell well outside the spectrum displayed by most doctors. This has been captured clearly by  both the Beal and the Solicitor General's report. During that process I still continued to

challenge both the clinical directors and the management directors. Perhaps in a larger hospital with a very large body of consultants and also a much larger team of established and experienced ophthalmologists the type of behaviour could possibly have been successfully managed without detriment to the efficient and smooth operation of the hospital, but this was not the case in this instance. Jersey General was still in the early days of a journey to embed strong culture of clinical governance and leadership. There was and still is a small consultant body and a team of only 3 ophthalmologists, 2 of whom at the time were likely to be relatively new and inexperienced after both longstanding consultants retired, one imminently and one within 3 years. With such small teams, good team working, the interests of the patients and not self-interest is paramount. Remember the key findings of Verita: patient safety is directly affected by poor team working, poor communication, consultants working as individuals or in isolation, distance or strained relationships between clinicians and management. Indeed, these were some of the factors among key findings in Robert Francis Q.C. (Queen's Counsel) in the Mid-Staffordshire investigation. This was not a decision that was taken lightly. The ministerial team asked for and received much evidence, questioned rigorously the senior managers and the doctors involved. Nonetheless, I believe then, and I still do today, that the right decision had been taken in the best interests of the hospital and the safety of patients using the services of our hospital. The hospital is fortunate to have a dedicated and professional team of senior doctors, nurses and managers and other professionals who lead their colleagues with integrity and absolute focus on safety and the well-being of patients. I need to thank them for that service. Lastly, as the Minister then and as a nurse, my every instinct, and indeed it was my professional duty, was to prioritise and promote patient safety. This is precisely what I did in this instance, based on evidence, and would do so again to ensure that the learning from Verita and others were not wasted and patients potentially put at risk. I have no hesitation in supporting the States Employment Board and that the vote of no confidence should be thrown out. The right decision was made for the interests of the hospital and most importantly the safety of all

patients that walk into it.

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

I think the Alwitry case is more a case of the straw breaking the camel's back. My concern is firstly towards the States Complaints Board. This is a highly proficient, highly recognised, eminent board who make detailed reports, study the position in depth and report to, eventually, this Assembly. The manner in which the S.E.B. rubbished their report I found deeply disturbing. It is vital that we have a States Complaints Board. We do not always get it right and therefore there needs to be a recourse for any member of the public to go and raise their complaints to a complaints board. If we just ignore their work then in all likelihood these eminent individuals will resign and no individual worthy of the post will come forward in the future knowing that their work and the hard efforts they make will not be taken seriously. I have stood in this very spot on a number of occasions when boards have made reports to this Assembly and I have said we should support those boards, they have done the in-depth inquiries. The Chief Minister has nodded in agreement with me that, yes, they are invaluable and, yes, we should listen to their advice. Yet on this occasion, despite all their hard work, despite their in-depth report it, in effect, was thrown out and rubbished. That is what concerns me a very great deal. The second issue is the fact that the States have not yet resolved the 2015 wage negotiations with States employees. Picture yourself as a States employee queuing up to pay your tax just before Christmas, a couple of months ago, because that is what you have to do, is you pay the difference between the I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment System) when you get a tax demand and your Christmas savings have been spent paying the tax man not being spent on festivities. So you queue up to pay your tax but you do so in the knowledge that the wage increases that are probably due to you from 2015, 2 years ago, is equal to or greater than the amount of tax you are being asked to pay, because the States Employment Board have not done their duty and made the necessary pay awards for 2015. I am embarrassed, seriously embarrassed, to think that some of our employees get a tax demand demanding that this tax is paid and if they do not they will be surcharged, when in all likelihood it is because the S.E.B. have failed to make the wage increases of 2015 necessary and the money owed to them paid to them. I daresay the Chief Minister will stand up and say: "These are awkward people, we have tried very hard." I am afraid I am somebody who measures success taking into account effort. But for this to go on for 2 years I think is not acceptable and it is for that reason, again, that I have very, very great concern. I ask Members of this Assembly to think very deeply and not to be led astray with just one case, that of the Alwitry case, but instead to look at the broader implications: the States Complaints Board; the wage rises that have not been paid for 2015, not been paid for 2016; and the uncertainty working at the present moment of not knowing what your wages are. This does not happen in the private sector and we should be setting the example because we create the employment laws and we have a duty to set that example, and I am very sad to say that example is not being set. I think we need a fresh S.E.B. and I will be supporting this proposition. Thank you.

3. Senator P.M. Bailhache :

This is a curious proposition. It is ostensibly founded upon 4 different complaints against S.E.B. but the reality is that it seems to be founded only upon the complaint of Mr. Alwitry. The other 3 complaints, do not, to my mind, add up to a row of beans and it is quite interesting that the proposer

- unless I missed it - did not refer to them once at all. So we are talking about the Alwitry case. The curiosity is that the Chief Minister's position as chairman of the S.E.B. is a matter of law. The Chief Minister cannot resign as chairman of S.E.B. The only thing he could possibly do would be to resign as the Chief Minister. It is true that he could appoint a delegate to chair the S.E.B. but that, I think, would not really do. So the reality and the stamping of feet from the other side of the Chamber seems to underline this. The reality is that this is an attack upon the Chief Minister himself. Members, I think, should be very careful before considering casting a vote for such a proposition and requiring Deputy Higgins to be extremely clear in his accusations first of all. I have a sense of being taken by Deputy Higgins down into the weeds at the bottom of a murky and muddy pond and I would like to surface in order to breathe and to reflect upon what the Assembly can fairly require of the S.E.B. I would start with the functions of the States Employment Board which are set out in the comments of S.E.B., at page 6 if Members would like to refer to it. Article 8 of the relevant law provides at paragraph 1(b) of the function of the S.E.B. and this seems to me to be the only one which is in any way relevant to Deputy Higgins's proposition. "The function of the S.E.B. is to ensure that the public service conducts itself with economy, efficiency, probity and effectiveness."

[10:45]

So the S.E.B. can be held politically accountable for the actions of public servants who do not conduct themselves with probity and effectiveness. We have a very recent example in a different context of a Minister or Assistant Minister taking political responsibility for serious errors on the part of others in relation to the Innovation Fund. It is not obvious to me that any of those errors were mistakes of the Minister or Assistant Minister personally, but he took political responsibility for them. Political accountability works in our Assembly but in that instance it was crystal clear - crystal - that something in the public administration had gone seriously wrong. We had the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which laid out the errors in graphic form. So what is the position here? We have a tangle of accusation and counter-accusation coming from Mr. Alwitry, from Deputy Higgins and from others. The Deputy has accepted one side of the argument and I must say that I am inclined to accept the other side, but the truth is that the Assembly cannot know for certain whether or to what extent there were errors on the part of public officials in the case of Mr. Alwitry until the facts have been examined dispassionately and objectively. Fortunately, this is going to happen. Mr. Alwitry, having failed to take his complaint to the Employment Tribunal

some time ago, where he could have received a resolution of his complaints, has taken an action before the Royal Court. The court will hear evidence from all the interested parties, will hear them cross-examined, will examine the facts and will decide whether Mr. Alwitry was in fact treated unlawfully, as the Deputy alleges, by public officials. So we are being asked this morning to second-guess the decision of the Royal Court without any of the advantages which the court will have to ensure that the truth comes out. The underlying issue of whether something has gone seriously wrong in the public administration has not been established. We have conflicting reports from, as the Constable said, some distinguished individuals, but none of those individuals or boards were acting judicially. We need a decision of a court. My question for the Assembly is how can the S.E.B. reasonably be held politically accountable for the actions or errors or alleged errors of public officials when those errors may not in fact be errors at all? The preliminary basis for political accountability on the part of the S.E.B. has simply not been established, it is not there. How can one say that the S.E.B. has not, and I quote: "Ensured that the public service conducts itself with probity and effectiveness" when the facts have not been examined and the truth established? The Assembly is not a court. It should not go into the murky weeds of these different allegations and counter-allegations. The fact of the matter is that the basis for political accountability on the part of the S.E.B. is not there and I ask Members to reject the proposition.

4. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

As a member of the current S.E.B., it is difficult to bring something new and not to repeat issues, although I thought more Members would have spoken by this time to try to offer a new or different view to Members of this Assembly, this especially after some colleague participants in the situation have already spoken and explained their various roles in the decisions that were made at the time, why they made those decisions: the Minister, the Health and Social Services Department back in 2012, or if they were members of the S.E.B., again back in 2012, a time when the crucially important decisions were made. I thought I might also be speaking after the Constable of St. Mary had spoken, who often brings much sense and valuable, thoughtful contributions as another member of the S.E.B. and I look forward to it if she will be speaking later in the debate. Members will recall that it was this Assembly that elected the Constable of St. Mary and myself, through an election of Members of this Assembly, back in November 2014 to be the 2 non-ministerial members of the new S.E.B. I make no apology for giving that date, November 2014, a date that is long after the important decisions had taken place. However, I wish to stress I accept that if the motion is supported today and this Assembly supports Deputy Higgins and a no confidence vote with the S.E.B., then so be it. It is a vote of no confidence against this S.E.B. and not the previous one. I will accept that decision and I know what steps I will be taking. I cannot speak for other members of the board, but I believe the current S.E.B. members stand together on this issue and firmly believe that we have no case to answer. As I have said before, I am not sure how to bring something new to this debate today, but I hope my few words will assist the Assembly, to those Members who have already expressed their views. Unlike the Deputy , Deputy Higgins, I have written notes, because there are many times we sit down after a debate or after we have given a speech somewhere and think: "I wish I would have said .. it is too late now" and I am sure even tonight I will think of something that maybe I should have said. I believe Deputy Higgins finds himself in a difficult situation, not knowing who he is bringing the vote of no confidence against. I think Senator Bailhache raised it, and we had not discussed this before, about the same thing. I have thought about the Deputy 's predicament in recent weeks, after receiving the proposition

P.137. Who should be subject to this no confidence vote? The Deputy could not bring a vote of no confidence in the previous S.E.B. That just would not work. Had the Deputy lost confidence in the management of the Health and Social Services Department, either back in 2012 or maybe he has grave concerns about the department now? Was this a vote of no confidence from the Deputy against the States Human Resources Department, again in 2012 or now? Could this be a vote of no confidence against the 3 ministerial members of the current S.E.B., and a step back, maybe the current 2 non-ministerial members too, as we are one board? Could this be a no confidence vote in the Chief Minister himself and therefore the Council of Ministers?  I cannot speak for the Deputy , but I am sure he means it to be the current S.E.B. membership. Reading the first paragraph of the Deputy 's report, I started to get confused again, and I think it has been highlighted by a couple of Members who have spoken this morning. Deputy Higgins cites the S.C.B.'s (States Complaints Board) findings to justify: "What was grossly unfair and a shabby act, to denigrate and question the work of States of Jersey Complaints Board, who have investigated the matter thoroughly and with integrity through attempts by the States Employment Board .." Then he goes further with the Chief Minister, and further again, the Minister for Health and Social Services. The Deputy then appears to aim the entire argument of the report prepared by the States Complaints Board and then goes on to discuss the situation in his paper regarding other individuals, 3 other individuals, in the previous 8 years, one of them which had no connection or involvement with S.E.B., and another related to something that occurred with the S.E.B. prior to the previous S.E.B. That brings me back to whether or not the Deputy is attacking this board as a board or maybe the actual system that we have as to how the S.E.B. runs and operates. If that is the case, then maybe a proposition should have been brought by the Deputy to remove and disband the S.E.B. completely from their defined role and have different control over States employees. A Member of this Assembly, not in this debate, because she could not use the word, had called it "a something muddle." I think Members might know, it was "a something muddle." I will not repeat that comment because it is not parliamentary, but I am not sure if it is an actual muddle. I think Members will agree that they all know more about this case now than they ever did and I certainly hope they do. The detailed explanation surrounding the decisions that were made in 2012 will and are being fully explained today, facts that Members had the opportunity to gather yesterday at a briefing held for States Members. Unfortunately, at that briefing, only half the States Members were able to attend, probably because of other commitments. Anorak as I may be, I keep cuttings and notes, files and minutes, and I located my first involvement with this, in this situation, on 9th April 2015, nearly 2 and a half years down the line from when the decisions had been made. I was briefed as a new S.E.B. member some 4 and a half months into my term as an S.E.B. member on the background of a pending case involving a Mr. Alwitry, and it was likely to be heard by the courts, panels or

tribunals in due course. Up until that date, I had no knowledge, to my recollection, of this matter. Since that time - and the Deputy has spoken about the amount of paperwork he has - I have 2 and a half arch-lever files full in my office back in the Parish. I do not give that as an excuse. I have already explained as to where I stand, how I should go forward if the Deputy 's vote of no confidence succeeds today and I stand with my colleagues in S.E.B. There is no point in repeating the subsequent timeline of events now because that has been well-rehearsed this week, and in response we, S.E.B., have submitted and by the various speeches that we have heard already today. The S.E.B. of today, and I am sure every board before ours, do not attend S.E.B. meetings and make decisions lightly. I will not boast about the number of meetings that I have attended on S.E.B. or the work we have worked on on the subpanel that has been formed following Deputy Southern 's proposition on redundancy. I know the Constable of St. John has now brought up a different aspect of today's debate, but I am sure the Chief Minister later on will be explaining the amount of work that has been done in relation to wage negotiations with the unions. There have been a number of occasions when I have openly stated to my colleagues on S.E.B. that I can only put forward ideas and suggestions and that I do have to rely on the advice from professionals, from the officers or from consultants that do this, as they are trained professionals. Why have them otherwise? It is easy to try to become a Jack of all trades, and I am not implying the Deputy is a Jack of all trades at all, but I like to listen, to learn, to ask and sometimes it is just common sense, the answers that come forward. A little knowledge can be dangerous, so do not read a medical book if you have got a headache or a pain in your kidneys, go to a doctor. I have asked for advice

from the S.E.B. members, and from our experts and officers employed in the H.R. Department. What on earth are they there for otherwise and why have they been recruited to the most senior positions if they are going to give us incorrect advice so often that maybe the Deputy might suggest or suspect happens? For the further advice we receive from trained negotiators in wage disputes, from the States Reward Team, Pensions Department, the Treasury, recruitment and H.R., and if Members are unaware, the advice we received and continue to receive is from the Island's most senior legal advisers, in particular in this matter from the learned S.G. (Solicitor General) and the previous S.E.B., who received advice from the S.G.'s predecessor, who in turn has sought advice from senior legal advisers on this type of situation from barristers and others in London, who specialise in such disputes. The decisions are not made on a raffle, by looking at tea leaves or tossing a coin. They are not made in haste. I hope Members are not thinking that I am trying to make light of the situation, a very serious situation.  I remind Members that we all, each Member, rely on advice daily.

[11:00]

The Ministers and the Assistant Ministers do, from their expert advisers; the Connétable s. We even have to seek advice in our Parish, would you believe? The Scrutiny Panels, how often do we hear how important our Scrutiny Panels are, because they go to experts for advice? Members who sit on all the other forums, working parties, committees, panels that form part of this Government, the Planning Committee and their officers, who know the laws inside out, and Members must also remember - I will just stress this point - that apart from the 3 ministerial positions on the board and the 2 non-ministerial positions, we have a totally independent member, an expert in her field, who brings sound reasoning and advice on every topic we discuss, an independent, non-executive director and whose considerable range of experience was explained to Members yesterday at the briefing. I could go on. I will not. I just hope my comments assist Members to understand some further background and other aspects of S.E.B. work. Although I have to accept the decision was made that this matter could be debated in the Assembly today, I must say, for no other reason and not a delaying tactic on my part, I really believe the matter should not have taken place following the serving of proceedings on the S.E.B., but I bow to the decision of the Bailiff and his reasons behind it. We could seek to hold this in-camera. That was an even worse option. Why consider in- camera just because the case is pending? But we know that the public and Members of this Assembly do not like in-camera debates and history tells us that such debates get out in the public within hours maybe and the Assembly can vote to release the transcripts of any in-camera debate anyway. I suggested at a recent S.E.B. meeting prior to this debate an alternative reaction from S.E.B. members, the current members, could be that we not speak in this debate, that we make no comment because of the situations we find ourselves in with the Royal Court hearing to follow. But we speak and we are where we are today. I look forward to the next time we sit in this Assembly and a Minister refuses to answer a question because the matter is pending legal proceedings or is sub judice because legal proceedings are pending. I have kept my comments as best I could away from the pending case. I ask Members who are considering supporting Deputy Higgins' vote of no confidence today how they would have dealt with the matter in 2012 or how they would have dealt with the matter if they had taken up a position in the S.E.B. in November 2014 or April 2015, when the Constable of St. Mary and myself were briefed on the matter, or more importantly, how they would have dealt with it after the publishing of the report of the Complaints Board last summer. We could concede, offer Mr. Alwitry full and final settlement of a considerable figure and putting the Innovation Fund in the shade, that is the fact of it, or change the S.E.B. position, a decision of 2012, and decide to employ Mr. Alwitry after all, write to him offering him the job. No, I suggest they would not, and certainly not on the advice we had continually received, provided by the S.E.B. I suggest they would listen, take on the advice, attempt to reach a fair settlement and hold firm, as we have done. I go back to what the former