States Meeting Transcript - 28th April 2022

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 28th APRIL 2022

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 4

1.1 Welcome to Barneville-Carteret delegation ............................................... 4 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4

2. States Meetings - Remote Participation and Proxy Voting (P.63/2022) - resumption .. 4

2.1 Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 4

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 5
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ......................................................................... 6
3. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................... 8
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 9
5. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ....................................................... 9
6. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................... 10
7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 12
8. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................... 14
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 14
10. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 14
11. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier : ...................................................... 15
12. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ...................................................... 16

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY ........................ 21

3. The Chief Minister regarding the response to the COVID-19 pandemic .............. 21

3.1 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): ......................................... 21

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 22
2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 23
3. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 23
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 24
5. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 24
6. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 24
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ...................................................... 25
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 25
9. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 26
10. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 26

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption ................................................................ 27

4. Greffier of the States: Consent to Appointment (P.72/2022) ............................ 27 [Debate proceeded in camera] .................................................................. 27

5. Amendment to Standing Orders - Machinery of Government Sub-Committee (P.64/2022) - as amended (P.64/2022 Amd.) .............................................. 28

5.1 Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 28

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 29
2. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 29

6. Monitoring of Arm's Length Organisations and Green and White Papers (P.65/2022) .............................................................................................. 31

6.1 Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 31

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 33
2. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................ 33
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 34
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 34 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 35
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :......................................................... 36
6. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville : ......................................................... 36
7. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 37
8. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 37
9. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ......................................................... 38
10. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 43 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 43

7. G.S.T. on menstrual sanitary products (P.66/2022) ..................................... 43

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 44

2. G.S.T. on menstrual sanitary products (P.66/2022): amendment (P.66/2022 Amd.) .. 44

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): .......................... 44
2. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 46
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 47
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 47
5. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 48
6. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 49
7. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 51
8. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 52
9. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 52
10. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ...................................................... 53
11. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................ 54
12. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 54
13. Senator T.A. Vallois: .................................................................. 55
14. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................. 55
15. The Deputy of St. Ouen : .............................................................. 56
16. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : .................................................... 57
17. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 57
18. Deputy J.H. Perchard: ................................................................. 58
19. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : .............................................................. 60
20. The Deputy of St. Mary : .............................................................. 60
21. Deputy C.S. Alves : .................................................................... 60
22. Deputy S.J. Pinel: ...................................................................... 61

3. G.S.T. on menstrual sanitary products (P.66/2022) - resumption ...................... 63

1. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 63
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 63
3. Deputy J.A. Martin: ...................................................................... 63
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 64
5. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 64
6. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 65
7. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 65
8. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 67
9. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 67
10. Deputy J.H. Perchard: ................................................................. 67
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 68
12. Senator K.L. Moore :................................................................... 68

8. Draft Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 202- (P.69/2022) - as amended (P.69/2022 Amd.)

 .............................................................................................. 70

1. Deputy G.C. Guida (The Minister for Home Affairs): ................................... 70

1. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 72
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 74 Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .......................................................................... 74 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 75
3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 75 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 76
4. Deputy J.H. Perchard: .................................................................... 76
5. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 78
6. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: .................................................................... 79
7. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 79
8. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 80
9. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 80

2. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 85

1. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 85
2. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 86
   3. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 88 Deputy I. Gardiner :.............................................................................. 88 The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ............................................................... 88 Senator K.L. Moore :............................................................................ 89 Deputy J.H. Young: ............................................................................. 89 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 89 Deputy M.R. Higgins: .......................................................................... 90 Deputy I. Gardiner :.............................................................................. 90

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 91

[9:32]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Bailiff :

1.1  Welcome to Barneville-Carteret delegation

Before moving on with Public Business, we have 3 very distinguished visitors in the Chamber with us this morning. We have Messr Gilbert Chodorge, who is the mairie adjoint de Barneville-Carteret, we have Messr Jacques Haebig, who is conseiller du commerce extérieur la France, and Madam Isabelle Bouyer-Maupas, vice-présidente of the Maison La Normandie de La Manche and councillor of La Manche County in charge of the external relations. Perhaps Members would welcome them in the usual way. [Approbation]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. States Meetings - Remote Participation and Proxy Voting (P.63/2022) - resumption The Bailiff :

We now continue with the debate on P.63. I remind Members, after this debate is over there will be a statement by the Chief Minister and after that then there is a matter to be dealt with in-camera. But we continue with the debate. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition?

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

Sir, sorry, before Deputy Pamplin starts, can I just ask whether the statement could be circulated to us because we have an ideal window so that can be done?

The Bailiff :

There is an ideal window where no one will be listening to this debate [Laughter] in which the statement can be read. I wonder if it can be circulated; has it been circulated?

2.1   Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour :

I will not take that personally, Deputy . Good morning, everyone. To start with this and I hate to say "to be brief" because that usually means 15 minutes but, however, since the Deputy joined the Assembly, and we must remember not at the beginning of this political term, she has been an absolute asset and tour de force and a tribute to herself. Many Members when we come into this Assembly often do not speak let alone get involved in parliamentary business but in her first 4 years, much like my other inspiration of this Assembly, Deputy Alves becoming the chair of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) in her first term, it is an extraordinary achievement to new Members for doing so. But I say that with a caveat because I understand where she is coming from with this. This has been a political parliamentary hot potato for many years which was brought to the fore because of the global pandemic. As Members would probably imagine, I have done some research on this, and there is a fascinating piece of work by a parliamentary international journal of parliamentary studies which looked at the remote participation and proxy voting in the United Kingdom House of Commons and compared it to many other jurisdictions across the world. It is important to note that the U.K. (United Kingdom) House of Commons introduced this idea based on family-friendly proposals back in 2018-19. It was then asked of the House and the equivalent to P.P.C. to look into matters relating to Members who were not ill, they were simply unable to join because either for childbirth reasons or for tragic reasons that is not an illness, and so it was looked into. It took them 2 years to come to the proposition that they brought but then at that point it was around the time of the global pandemic and the U.K. House of Commons Speaker made a very good decision to allow a look at because of the public health emergency that was currently in place. What was agreed is

very robust and very, very well-governed where the issues of certificates are issued. But the big caveat of course in the United Kingdom House of Commons is the size of the Commons, with many hundreds of Members of Parliament but equally how the parties work. I return to this paper that really sums it up, that the idea of proxy voting is an important factor in explaining the decision for political party reasons. Here, in this Parliament, we do not have - even though we do have parties emerging and one very much established party - that this means a lot of work and a lot of consideration. I do not think today is that day. Equally also, because we are soon to have a new Greffier of the States, we are obviously going to have a new Assembly, that could be a new Chair of P.P.C., and a new Assembly, we cannot .. and I think of the last Assembly when a very interesting decision about P.1, as it infamously is now known, hampered us, as this new sitting, which has caused many controversial debates since that decision was made before we could. I use that comparison because for me this Parliament, this Chamber, is paramount. It has to still stand for something and I think there is too much slippage in the reasoning behind why the Deputy is bringing this because I think the way we have operated and worked, especially at the beginning with the global pandemic, which the Deputy referenced by going to Fort Regent, because 2 years ago we did not have the vaccines, we did not have the knowledge, we did not understand. That was a protection of each other, which the public health emergency has always been about. Two years later we are in a very different place, much of the community have been returning to work but understanding now that one of the key issues is the environments in which we work. As much as I love this historic place, this special place, it does bring challenges in terms of its ventilation, which is a key issue in terms of the transmission of viral diseases. However, I believe, Sir, you and your team, have given great consideration to Members when they have asked and requested not to be here on terms of health and illness. We have seen that play out and I commend you for that and the way the remote working works. We have to learn from that and also put in place this system of Teams going forward. But it is one step too far too early and I think, just before the election, the public still see this as the governing ruling house of the Island and they want to see us here as much as possible. We have to trust the members of the public for explaining rational decisions but the nuances of the debates over the last 4 years, and I think especially of the assisted dying debate, where being in this Chamber and watching and looking and taking the emotion of that debate in this Chamber. We have had other debates of course where people amazingly have changed their mind. It does happen during debate. That has also worked with hybrid sittings. Sometimes the nuances where people have suddenly disappeared and not present for votes and also people who unfortunately may have to go on official States business. But for me attending this Assembly is paramount. This is not a job, this is a way of life, and I think we have to take a step back at this stage, look at where we are, but that is why I cannot support this at this time.

1. Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour :

My dear friend, Deputy Pamplin, I think I am going to start by trying my best to change his mind on this particular issue, and I am also going to address some of the comments made by the Constable of St. John as well and hopefully change his mind as well. Firstly, part (a), I do not think there is an issue with part (a) but just to recap because we have left this overnight, part (a) simply requests that when remote participation is generally allowed, which may not be the case at some point, we may agree as an Assembly that we do not allow it at all, but part (a) says when a remote sitting is generally allowed that Members who find themselves in exceptional circumstances, defined by the Bailiff in guidance, will be allowed to participate remotely. Deputy Gardiner gave a great example of that yesterday when she was stuck in the U.K. with COVID, she was well enough to participate remotely but simply was not allowed to. I think we all agree that that is an exceptional circumstance and we would all expect that guidance would have to be issued in order for those exceptional circumstances to be clearly defined.

[9:45]

Any breach of that would indeed be a breach of the rules as it would be a breach of Standing Orders when we break the rules in the Chamber. I do not think there is an issue with part (a) and I am yet to hear someone speak out against it, so I will not dwell on that. Proxy voting and part (b). It is first my intent to remind Members that Deputy Gardiner has not proposed what the rules and governance around that would look like. She has proposed that that is brought back to the Assembly. Firstly, it is worth reminding Members that at that time Members will be able to weigh in on those rules and play a part in defining and dictating what they should and should not look like. Members may decide to make that very, very, very narrow. Members might decide that that looks like, well, in the case where you have .. as is the case for some Members, you come to the Assembly in the morning, you are present in the morning, but you have a particular, again, exceptional circumstance which requires you to leave, say a hospital appointment or indeed if you wish to attend a funeral. In those particular cases we might decide that those are the only instances where a proxy vote would be acceptable. We have the power to make that decision. But what I do not think we should be doing is shutting the door on having that conversation, which is what we would be doing if we vote against this proposition. I know this, because reading the report accompanying the proposition and discussing the intent and the spirit of the proposition with the Deputy , that is the intention. We have had conversations about this because obviously the concerns are we do not want people to abuse the system. We do not want people to just never be here. Deputy Gardiner and I had a conversation this very morning about the hierarchy of priority. We swear an oath saying that we will prioritise attendance in the Chamber. So Deputy Gardiner and I both agree, and I know Members agree, that the priority is physical presence. If that is not doable because of a pandemic, for example, remote participation is the next best thing. A proxy vote in this proposition, in Deputy Gardiner 's mind and in my understanding of it, is an exception. It should only be used in exceptional circumstances where the first 2 things cannot happen. If you cannot be present and if you cannot attend remotely then a proxy vote should be an option. I think that that is the spirit and intent of this proposition. For Members to close the opportunity to allow access in this way without even having a discussion around what the rules should be is a shame. For me, this is about inclusivity. This proposition is an issue of inclusion because if a Member is ill and needs to attend a medical appointment during a sitting and they are present in the morning and wish to have their vote cast in the afternoon when they cannot be present personally I think they should be allowed and enabled to do that. This is about access and inclusivity. That is the intent of this for me. There is absolutely no way that anybody would tolerate an agreement for proxy voting without any rules or guidance. I think it is quite obvious and fair to state that no one in this room would expect there to not be issued guidance or rules following this debate. If this passes, of course there should be and will be Member consultation. P.P.C. have to look into the detail, the Bailiff will need to weigh in. That should absolutely all happen but I do not think we should just shut the door on it because we do not want people to abuse the system. That argument needs to come in the next phase. Just commenting very briefly on the comment made by the Constable of St. John about going back to normal. He is absolutely right. We all need to be here as much as possible because we know that the debates, discussion, relationships, working together is all benefited from a physical presence. The eye contact. It makes such a big difference. However, normal for some people has not always been inclusive and so I would say, yes, let us get back to normal and all the good things that the old normal worked for everybody, but if we have an opportunity to develop our normal to be more inclusive and to give access to people who may be poorly, who have other responsibilities to attend to that they cannot avoid, let us also take the opportunity to make our new normal more inclusive.

2. Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is good to follow people because one of the things we have to do in this Assembly is learn how to disagree effectively and do it in a thoughtful way. This has provoked a debate, and I am pleased that we are having this debate. But unfortunately there are I think some issues with this proposition for myself. We have been through a really difficult time with COVID, as has everybody else, but we are

here to represent people during COVID and it has been one of the biggest challenges. For somebody who this is the first time I have been in this Assembly, those 2 years of COVID have really been an awkward one to deal with because that is not the way I wanted it to be. I wanted to be here. I wanted to be here representing and stood with other Members and really getting into the nitty-gritty of that debate and it has been a challenge. Notwithstanding the incredible work that was done to keep it going, and I think we all genuinely appreciate that. Personally, I really disliked meetings on Teams. I really disliked it online because it lacked something. I think in person is so important for us in this Assembly. I will say though that sometimes the briefings on Teams have been actually quite valuable because you can spread your stuff out, you can ask the questions, you can take notes, et cetera, and I hope we do not lose that because there is a forum there that can work. Let us get back to the proposition. What it actually says is that Members should be able to participate remotely from outside Jersey in the event of an unforeseen circumstance but the debate has gone into what I think are foreseen circumstances, such as being off-Island for specific reasons and they are very different. I have a real concern at this stage and where this Assembly is with the advent of Teams and post- COVID that we are not in a situation where the public or indeed, and it is difficult to say, and that is why I started off by saying we need to learn how to disagree nicely, this Assembly has the trust to say that that will work. It is a difficult thing to say publicly but I have to say it and I will have to take on that challenge. I do not think we are in a position to do this yet. The second part about proxy voting. In other jurisdictions what they do .. I think in the U.K. what they do is they have a sort of agreement between the parties to say: "If somebody is off on maternity leave one of our members will not vote either." It is a sort of quid pro quo I think the phrase is to say that we will do that. We do not have that structure here. However, I do believe that at some point, proxy voting for maternity or paternity or long-term illness or whatever is important so that people can vote from a distance in terms of that situation. But we have to work out a way that that works. I would like P.P.C. to go away during the next Assembly, and I think it is really important for the next Assembly to vote on this and not now, which is why I cannot support it because we have to look at the structure of that Assembly. What that Assembly has to do is sit down and have a very frank and honest discussion about how it is going to conduct itself in terms of presence in this Assembly. That I think is going to be a really difficult one, and I suggest it happens early on so that people get the issues right out in the open from the beginning because I think that will be the healthiest way forward. I think then the third part does not simply say come up with the best way for this to work. It says the amendments to the Standing Orders to implement paragraphs (a) and (b). Therefore be very thoughtful about what you are voting for. If you vote for part (c) only without parts (a) and (b) it does not really make any sense, in my opinion. What I would say is that remote .. if somebody is off sick, if somebody is ill to a point where they are protecting each other, and I said this during the COVID debate, we are going to have to really think the way that we act when we are ill after COVID. For many occasions, and I worked in a profession where it was an absolute nightmare, nobody would take time off and then everybody would get ill, but we are going to have to rethink the way that we act. If we are ill we are going to have to take personal responsibility and say: "I am staying away from other people so that illness does not spread." Enabling that remote participation on-Island for very specific reasons I think is something we do need to look at as an Assembly because we do have Teams and there is a hybrid system, but we have to look at that hybrid system. Personally, I would like to see a hybrid system where there is a screen in this room so that Members can, if you like, remotely attend in person visually as well as just with sound, and I think that would enable the system a little, if that is necessary. However, the priority is to be in this Assembly and to represent our constituents. We have seen pressures on that. I have never supported the 3-week sitting and I know we can have this debate .. it is quite a nice debate at times because we disagree on it and it is one of the things we can disagree in a nice way. I do not support the 3-week sittings because it does lengthen the time in between when we are stood here looking at each other and having those debates. I am really worried about some of the things that have been perhaps suggested with the coming election about lessening question times. It is as if the questions seem to be a problem. I will be honest and say that right at

the beginning of my time in this Assembly - I will not say who because to be honest I cannot remember who it was - somebody said to me: "You just ask too many questions" and I went away from that. I thought that is a very strange thing to say. "You ask too many questions. You ask too many questions on behalf of your constituents. You want to gather too much information so you understand the workings of Government. You want to gather too much information because you want to know what the drive is behind these policies and how they are going to work." I am sorry, you cannot ask too many questions in those terms. If those who are in Government do not like that then they need to get used to it and they need to be prepared to deal with it and come up with concise answers. Anything that erodes what we are doing I think is a problem. At face value, this extends what we are doing but my problem is that as soon as you say outside of Jersey you do have an issue with tracking that remoteness and the reason why. Sir, I believe it puts pressure on you to make those decisions, and I do not think it will help us as an Assembly. I do not think it should be put in that position, to be quite frank. I am sure he can handle it but that is not the point. I think that this Assembly has to have its procedures clear, to the point and reasoned. I think this is just the wrong time, and it is bizarre that I am saying that I know because I have argued so much against that. But with this particular situation, where we have been through COVID and where we are now, and at the end of this Assembly, I do not think I can support this. I would like to see more work on proxy voting and a way in which we can do that effectively so that people are not excluded. I agree with Deputy Perchard about that. True inclusivity will mean that we will have proxy voting. You cannot exclude somebody because they have had a baby or because they are on paternity leave. That is both misogyny in action, and there is a male equivalent and I have forgotten what the word is but there we go. But it is similar. It happens. We are not, getting back to putting children first, we cannot do that and then say that if you are a States Member you cannot put your children first. We can be flexible and we can have a working system where that happens. Finally, I would say that in places I have worked in - I have worked in a number of different places, not just in teaching but in all sorts of places, to be quite frank - taken time off because there was an unforeseen circumstance meant: "Well, you just have to make the time up I am afraid or you are not going to get paid." So there was not that flexibility. Now, great, let us have that flexibility but let us have it for all. Let us have equity. Let us have equality. Let us have genuine respect for our workforce. Until we do that I think we are on shaky ground. That is all I would say, but I thank the Deputy for bringing this forward. Can I just finish by saying: I was not suggesting and I do apologise to Deputy Pamplin, it was just an unforeseen consequence of me trying to think of some sort of efficient thing which really has backfired, so I apologise. I listen to every word intently that Deputy Pamplin says. I can honestly say that, and he is not listening to me now so that is great. With that, I say thank you but I am afraid I cannot support this proposition.

The Bailiff :

I do not think for a moment anyone took seriously the fact that no one was going to be listening, well at least they did not.

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

In the very many jobs that I have been lucky enough to do over my lifetime, things like planting potatoes by hand, cutting cauliflowers, driving tractors, being a herdsman and a vet, heavy goods lorry driver, commercial boat skipper, a manager, director for companies and stuff, in every one of those instances it has been possible, if I was not there, to get somebody in to do my job for me.

[10:00]

But as an elected Member of this Assembly, as the Deputy of St. Martin , I do not enjoy the privilege or the possibility of getting somebody in to do my job because I am elected by the parishioners of my Parish and I cannot just get somebody to deputise for me. I need to be here and we need to be here, and we know that when we take the oath in the Royal Court. COVID was a strange time and

we knew we had to keep our Assembly, our legislature, working, and we came up with the rules to do that and it did work, and it is a credit to you, Sir, and everybody else in the team that we managed to get that to work. Deputy Tadier , who is not here, used some words yesterday. He used the word "direction of travel" and I had written down in my short speech "thin end of the wedge" because I, like he, am concerned about the way this proposition might take us. COVID came. We had some rules, we had to invent them very quickly but we had some rules about how we were going to run this Assembly and those rules said we had to be in Jersey. I found myself sitting in my office in St. Martin thinking what exactly does "in Jersey" mean?" If I sit in my office is there any difference if I sit in my garden? If I sit in my garden is there any difference if I sit on the beach in St. Martin or on my boat? If I am sitting on the seashore at the Écréhous I am still in my Parish, can I participate? If I get back on my boat and push closer to France and find myself closer to France than Jersey but still in Jersey territorial waters am I in Jersey? The reason I raise the point is where does it end because if we are not careful we find we have Members participating in this Assembly from all parts of the globe? Deputy Gardiner made a really good case. We know we have to be in this Assembly and we take it seriously, we plan our holidays, we plan our events, we plan the way our life works around the sitting of the States. In Deputy Gardiner 's case, I think we would all agree that finding yourself in London a considerable amount of time before a States Assembly is due and having to isolate for 10 days was certainly outside of something that she had no control of. In that case, there might well be an instance where we might want to make some arrangements but the danger is, in making those arrangements, that - I have to unfortunately use this word - those arrangements get abused. The Constable of St. John quoted 2 cases yesterday. There are others. I have to say that yesterday, and it pains me to say this, I had a whole load of emotions at lunchtime - sadness, frustration, anger - where Members of this Assembly who have not been here this week turned up for the photograph and then went home again. [Approbation] That is letting us down. That is one of the reasons why I am not going to be able to vote for this today because until we can find a better way of making sure we are doing what we should do, I cannot see how we can move forward. Deputy Ward said he does not think this will work. I have to say I agree with him. I am not saying that we cannot go back to this in the future but I think it would be incumbent upon any proposition to bring a lot more detail before we see where we go. My worry would be that we sign up to (a) and particularly (b) and the detail comes after we have made the decision to move in that direction. Unfortunately for me, as much as I can see Deputy Gardiner 's case and understand why she has brought this proposition here today, I will not be able to support her.

4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

Much of what I was going to say has already been said so I will not repeat it. We did have an emergency, we did adapt very well. Firstly by separation with Fort Regent and latterly with Teams. That has worked extremely well and is possibly a model for the whole world if such a thing happened again. But hopefully we have seen the tail end now of COVID, and I do believe we should get back to normal and everybody in the Chamber whenever possible. I will not repeat what has been said. I do have a query regarding (a), (b) and (c). Is it possible to separate them or does (c) eliminate that by asking P.P.C. to implement paragraphs (a) and (b)? I could be tempted to vote for (a) in an emergency but certainly not (b). If they cannot be separated then unfortunately I will have to vote against the whole proposition.

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

Call me a cynic, and some do, and I may well give the impression of being cynical about some of the business that goes on in this House, but my basic question is can what is being proposed be used and/or abused? I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it could be abused in the sense that I have a vision, it is not a vision that is a positive one, it is a negative one, it is a nightmare. I have a vision whereby someone, a Member of this Chamber, has a flat in London and has a flat on the waterfront and votes by proxy half the time because they spend most of their time abroad. That must not happen, I do not think. It is going to require far more detailed examination if we are going to have some sort of system of votes by proxy but it is not this proposition today, and we have to be very careful about the proposition that may return at some future time.

The Bailiff :

If it assists Members, I have given some brief thought to the ordering of the proposition. I think it would be possible to take (a) and (b) separately if the Deputy wanted because the consequences, for example, passing (a) and not (b) or vice versa is that the reference to that subparagraph in (c) would simply fall away. So I think that it would be possible but that is a matter for the Deputy , she will take the propositions as she wishes.

6. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier :

We moved to 3-week sittings. There is a potential to move to remote participation. There is potential to have proxy voting. And there is potential to move to the Bahamas. Because quite frankly .. I jest, but I am serious. I do jest because when we moved from 2 week to 3-week sittings one of my concerns was this, the only thing that we swear on oath to do is be in this Chamber and the more the opportunity is to have less sittings the more opportunity for remote working, wherever that may be, and then to have proxy voting on top of that I feel we could end up in a very bad place. Once we are going that way, it is going to be difficult to change it. What I am saying is that we need to be very careful. I will not be voting for this and I did not vote for 3-week sittings. I am fully aligned to equality. I am a mother and I did a 24-hour rotating shift job and it was a challenge, and it was a challenge not only for me but obviously for my husband because we have the same child ironically. It was more difficult for some of my colleagues because some of them both worked rotating shifts at the same time. We were fortunate that we did not. Unfortunately I had very little childcare because I was an older mum, but I had very good neighbours and I did have one of my sisters who helped me out and took my child to school when I came back off nights because they thought I might be dangerous taking her myself. But the point is, is that we need to look at how we deal with equality, people being able to participate, and those people that need to look after their children but also let us not forget people's elderly relatives, let us not forget serious illnesses with our partners or loved ones. There are all sorts of things that we need to look at. But I do not think that this is necessarily the answer. I think this is what we need to look at, is how we can make it more inclusive but still show and be here as much as we possibly can. For me I would prefer to go back to 2-week sittings because I believe that that is what the public anticipated that we would do. I have been voting since I was 18 years old, I was brought up in that environment. You could not wait to get to the age of 18, not only could you go into a pub and have a drink but you could go in and vote, and it was a big deal. It was a big deal to be able to vote. I think that when people vote for us they expect that we are actually going to turn up and be here. In fact, earlier in the week we saw people campaigning outside and I stopped and spoke to them and they said: "Oh, thank you for speaking to us." If we do not come in here, they are not going to be able to stand outside because they are not going to see any of us. Yes, we all know we have had a very difficult 2 years, but we have all had a difficult 2 years; doctors and nurses have had a difficult 2 years, people in retail. None of them have had any time off. They have had to go into work every day. They cannot work from home. It is the same as all of our emergency services. So I do accept we have had a brilliant and a very fortunate system, but let us be frank here. Do you genuinely believe that the remote working, the participation of people that are not sat in here this week has been as good? Definitely not, because let us be honest, we get very distracted. I sit at home looking at a screen for 8 hours and I look at the bird that is sitting out the window. Then all of a sudden somebody arrives at the door. Oh, I will just go .. and you get distracted. If you are telling me that you can sit there for 8 hours at a screen and pay attention, I would doubt it. I certainly can admit that I cannot. I have a short attention span and I need to be sitting here and I need to look across the Assembly. Interestingly, I too remember, like the Constable of St. John , last year when we were very remote. In fact, there are a couple of people in this room that will remember the

accident I had in the corridor behind when I came in and asked for some ice. They looked at me as if: "What is wrong with her?" I remember, and I have a memory about who was dotted around on the opposite side of the room, and there was very few of us. I accept in that scenario that was acceptable, but we are moving forward and we are asking people to go back to work. So I do think that we need to be doing and being present in this Chamber. I think the public expect that of us. I fully appreciate what Deputy Gardiner says about the situation that she found herself in and hopefully that is going to change as things move forward with COVID. Hopefully it is going to change. The other side of it is - and somebody mentioned this yesterday and it might have been Deputy Martin - if you are ill, you are ill and that is why we can be malade. We can be sick. I am a very fortunate person and it is a very rare occurrence, but I have had 2 things, odd things, in the last 4 years. One was breaking my wrist and the other one was when I went to the dentist and a little misdemeanour and my face exploded. So the point is I could not come into work but, quite frankly, was I in a position to be able to do it remotely? To be honest, I was not. I was not well and there are a lot of people that are not well, have not been well, and we should be able to say: "I am not well so I cannot attend and I am not going to participate." I think we need to address that. It was interesting yesterday because Deputy Gardiner said about some of the urgent oral questions she had brought forward, and maybe that is something that P.P.C. could look at. Rather than changing our rules about proxy voting or doing that, we could have said: "An urgent oral question, that person is indisposed, can we get somebody else to ask it on their behalf?" That might be a rule that I certainly for one could live with because I think that would make a little bit of sense. Because the question is the same and they can certainly talk to the person and be able to feed that back in. The other thing is that our electorate, me included, probably think this .. maybe not now because I have been here for 4 years, but I used to think that when the summer came you all went on holiday because everybody was gone. But let us be frank, that is not true. I remember in our first summer when we launched our mental health review, I was at a wedding in the south of France taking phone calls and doing emails because we were working. People say: "You all have the summer off" and you have to try and say to them: "No, we do not."

[10:15]

If we move to something like this, I think they genuinely think we will all be on holiday on a permanent basis. I think the thing is that is why we really need to consider how we .. we need to be inclusive, I fully accept that. I have been there, done that, got the t-shirt, like everyone in this room has and most Islanders. So we need to work out how we can do all of this but still ensure that our participation in this Assembly is as much as possible in person. Everybody has been delayed on a flight coming back from a holiday, but the thing is if you are delayed and you are stuck .. and obviously we have had the pandemic the last 2 years, and I am sure a lot of us will remember about the ash in Iceland. That had people grounded, literally, across the world. It was far worse probably than COVID because people could not get back from America. It is interesting because I think Deputy Ward said something about if you were a teacher or in the police or whatever, if you did not come back for 2 weeks you have lost those 2 weeks of holiday. It was not a case of: "Oh, well, that is okay." You made that time up. So I just feel that we need to look at this and we need to be able to be inclusive and help people be able to facilitate their involvement within this environment. That is why I also yesterday voted against staying late today because we do have to consider beyond 5.30, and let us be fair, most of us have already gone past the fatigue mode and we are on the way downhill, but also people do have other commitments. It is not only about childcare, we also have lives outside of this environment and sometimes you are not the choice maker. You do not choose when it is going to be your husband/wife/partner's child's birthday or you have a relative over, so sometimes you just cannot say: "I can stay late" or you do not want to. I think the thing is we put ourselves under pressure to say yes all the time and we should not. That is another reason why I never wanted 3-week sittings because I genuinely believe that I would prefer to sit every fortnight for 3 days rather than sit for once every 3 weeks and then stretch it out. We have gone from Monday all the way through Friday

and, let us be quite frank, most of us are exhausted. On that note, I think I will say thank you very much and that is it.

7. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Just to address the very last part of the previous speaker, the last week, the last sitting usually before the end of the Assembly is always busy. It is not just because we have gone to a 3-week cycle. If it was a one-week cycle this would be full. Sorry to destroy the illusion there but that is the way it is. As I think Deputy Pamplin, who is not there, pointed out, at least this time around we are not rushing off to a nomination sitting, which I do recall, as I am sure many other Members do from that particular time, that I think we finished at 6.00 in the evening with nominations at 7.00 and that was not fun. Anyway, I am going to try and be a bit more positive for Deputy Gardiner , particularly as I was one of the people that I think she referenced in the debate. Possibly slightly tongue in cheek, Sir, I was very, very disappointed because I did offer, as you will recall, that having been caught up with I think it was the British Airways carnage around half term and flights being cancelled and things, I did offer to do questions without notice while I was away because of unforeseen circumstances. There was no way I could get back to Jersey on time. I was very disappointed, Sir, that you turned me down. Senator Farnham was obviously delighted that he had to step into my place, which may have been the alternative solution that we had but it was obviously a particular circumstance. I have to say I was rather looking forward to accidentally putting my camera on and having a scene behind me of a mountain or something along those lines, but anyway, obviously that was not to happen. However, a serious point. We have, as has been said, gone through an extraordinary 2 to 2½ years, and we have adapted to technology in a completely different way at a much faster rate of change than we would ordinarily have thought about. Hopefully, this is relevant. People will remember that we were criticised for the amount of I.T. (information technology) spend we were putting in, but part of that first rollout was Office 365. I am going to identify it because I remember Deputy Alves making some point about the merits of Teams, and I have to say at that point I did not know what Teams was. Boy, has that changed. The point was that if we had not done that, that would have .. well, we would have been in a fundamentally different and far more difficult position. Now, I am not making the point to say .. what I am saying is that change from a lack of knowledge to where I think we have all now .. I will not say we have all, various people have far more levels of expertise in that area than me, but we have all changed our habits. So, for me, the technology side, we all know that, the impact of technology changes how we do things. What we have to decide is do we want to make another step or not. I was thinking around some of the arguments I have heard. The comment I think was made the public, rightly, expect us to be in this Assembly. However, what we are talking about, and I am particularly focusing on part (a), if through unforeseen circumstances that individual cannot represent the public in this Assembly, what is the next best option? Either they do not represent the public in this Assembly or they are allowed and facilitated to do it under very strong and careful circumstances to still carry out that representation but doing it remotely. I can tell you for the purposes of the Deputy of St. Martin , and I cannot remember when it was, it was when we were in a remote sitting and I was on States business, but I can tell you that the Teams signal does work on the Écréhous. You can actually hear the States Assembly, if you wish to, in Jersey, in St. Martin , but separated by water. That raises issues in how we deal with things, but the technology does work. We are not talking about that because that was a remote sitting and we were accompanying official visitors, but if in circumstances that Members are away and they are caught out, I do think, certainly for part (a), we should be asking P.P.C. to look at that, which as far as I am concerned is what is being asked under very careful circumstances. I think Deputy Gardiner is trying to find a solution to a problem that does happen. It has happened to me on at least 2 occasions and for me I think it is something that we should look at. I do find sometimes when we have talked about that we do not want to do remote but we want to be inclusive and all those type of things, there is a slightly contradictory argument. We have been swept up in all areas, the thin end of the wedge. I cannot remember, we have gone all the way through 2 and 3-week cycles, et cetera, which I do not think is

relevant to this debate. But for me fundamentally it is about this is in particular circumstances, allowing us to continue representing Islanders when ordinarily we would not be able to. I am very much in the territory of, obviously in accordance with guidelines issued by yourself, Sir, what the proposition says and obviously asking P.P.C. to put that together. That for me is a matter of trust in what I think would be appropriate circumstances. Sorry, I have just been scribbling down .. I shall try and remove certain bits from the proposition. I would ask if Deputy Gardiner would think about taking it in separate parts because I now want to move on to part (b). Part (b) I do have a bit of an issue with. I note that Guernsey and a number of other Assemblies do it. I do remember on a C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) conference that I think we were informed that the voting .. they did all the debates in that particular Parliament all the way through the day but the votes were at 5.00 in the evening. So, essentially, you kind of thought what was the point of the debate because by that time .. and obviously it was done by party majority, et cetera, and as I understand it whoever it was gathered up the votes, effectively en bloc, and that was the outcome. I am not entirely convinced that in the nature of this Assembly, as we presently speak, that is something I particularly could go for. I think other people have spoken to that so I am not going to be quite so long on that area, but for me I have a reservation around proxy voting. I think that would need a lot more work. There is nothing that stops P.P.C. looking at it in the round anyway. They can always do that and come back and say it works. I will definitely be supporting part (a). I will make a comment. I think it was Deputy Le Hegarat who said about working in the office and about people obviously who do work 24-hour shifts and things like that. It reminded me I have had an F.O.I. (freedom of information) request at some point which has asked me for the hours I work in the office, to say how many full days and how many half days I work, for example, 9.00 to 5.00. The problem I have is that I have probably 3 offices. I have the office in Broad Street. In fact, technically you could say 4 if here is one of them. I have my office at home and I have this thing. The thing with that is if your office is where you hold meetings, I have held meetings on the South Bank of the Thames, dialling in. I have been on the motorway going down to the south of France in telephone calls, obviously while my wife was driving. I have been in full Teams video links driving back up from Provence on the motorway, again while my wife was driving. I have been away. The last holiday I had we carried on with normal business. I had meetings with the C.E.O. (chief executive officer) on the Monday evening. Funnily enough, that was when we discussed the additional funding we wanted to put into Ukraine. Deputy Pinel will remember that I rang her, in a very expensive call for her, on the Tuesday morning and said did she have her chequebook ready, and by the Thursday when we were back, the Thursday or Friday when we were back, we did the announcement about the extra million pounds of funding for Ukraine. So, business carries on wherever we are. We do not actually have an office these days. I do take the point, by the way, that was made about if you are ill, because one of the debates I think when I had COVID I was ill and not available for one day, but we had 3 days of debate and I came in later. I would have much preferred not to, so we have to watch the pressure there and things like that because that is what we will end up with. However, to deal with the proposition, as we have always been told: "At any time when remote participation in States meetings is permitted generally [that is condition number 1] then Members should be able to participate remotely from outside Jersey in the event that unforeseen circumstances prevent their participation from in the Island, with the circumstances permitting such participation to be determined in accordance with guidance issued by the Bailiff ." I think for me that is a strong position. It is something that if we are looking to continue to adapt to how technology has affected us, how we can then strengthen in my view the ability of us to represent the public in this Assembly, for me it is definitely something that we should be looking at and we should definitely be supporting. On that basis, I do urge as many Members if they can to certainly vote pour for part (a) if the Deputy will allow that separate vote. I will not be supporting part (b), but if P.P.C. was to look at that and come

back for a future Assembly that will be a matter for them.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Chief Minister. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? Male Speaker:

Sir, a point of order.

The Bailiff :

A point of order?

Male Speaker:

Yes, could you check that we are quorate, please, Sir? Standing Order 56.

The Bailiff :

Yes, of course. You are entitled to do that. One .. 27, because we are counting those participating online. I am working on the assumption, because it is impossible to say, that anyone who is present online is actually physically listening, but as I cannot know that we give people the benefit of the doubt and we deal with that accordingly, Deputy .

8. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I think it is absolutely right that in the light of the last 2 years we do look at how we embrace technology going forward to the benefit of the Assembly, not the detriment of the Assembly. That is a big conversation. Every Member will have opinions on it and it is right that they are heard. I am not sure that this morning is the right time to have that discussion, but it needs to be had with perhaps the new P.P.C. after the next election and with yourself, Sir, so that we can see if we can make progress and all agree on a sensible way forward. So as long as (a) is not locking us in and that discussion will happen, I am happy to support that. I cannot go with (b) for the reasons that have already been stated, and (c) seems sensible. We are not going to fall out over it, but I do feel that the Constable of St. John 's words earlier in this debate yesterday afternoon were ill chosen and have caused upset and offence as he seemed to appear to take a swipe at every Member apart from himself. I have to say that the cases he cited, from what I know and from what I can gather, are not in breach of Standing Orders. So the Constable cannot know the circumstances of every Member of this House and why they are here or why they are not here, and he should not leap to a judgment in that way. So I just feel, as I say, we are not going to fall out about it but I feel that the Constable was out of order. I know Members are upset and I am sorry for that.

[10:30]

9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

Following on from your comment earlier on, Sir, about quoracy, I think that is an element which would need further consideration if the gist of the proposition were to proceed. We have heard from many and I think what I picked up is that we need to learn what we have done in the last 2 years, pick the good bits out of it and take that further. I would urge P.P.C. to consider it. I do not believe I can support the proposition at this stage, but we must look ahead and take heed of what we have had to do over the last couple of years. On a final point, just for clarity from the point of view of the Constable of Grouville , I would say that the ability to get online in the Minquiers is not good. The signal is poor down there.

10. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I just want to follow up on Deputy Labey really because I think he put his finger on what this issue should be about. We have been or we are inclined to think it is about COVID but the reality is, of course, it is about the enabling power of technology and how we use that to the benefit of Islanders in this place. That is far from straightforward because the things that we can now do through

technology, the places we can be, the meetings we can be in, the decisions we can make, perhaps were not comprehensible to us prior to COVID. All of the work the Chief Minister has just explained, we used to have to do that on the old-fashioned telephone when we were away. Work has never stopped for parliamentarians, as we all know, but now we have technology which has advanced so much and has transformed where we can be and what we can do in a way that we had not envisaged. Therefore, I think there does need to be that conversation and the incoming P.P.C. really need to consider how that can be used to enhance democratic processes, as we have done through necessity in COVID. There is no reason why we cannot continue to set the standards and records and be the first Parliament to use technology in a supportive and innovative way into the future. I think that if

1. is given in that spirit, which I think, although it is based in COVID experience, it is given in that spirit, then in that spirit I can support it. But I would expect an incoming P.P.C. to do a proper review. It is not something that they just come in and say: "Okay, yes, everybody can stay at home" because that we all know is a nonsense for all of the reasons that we have said. Because although technology enables, one of the things that we know arising out of COVID is that without connection, without human interaction not via screens, then all of our mental health suffers. Therefore, being in this place has many benefits. So, in that spirit I can accept it, but if it were to come forward just as a straightforward yes or no issue, then I will not be able to accept that because there is a bigger and more important piece of work that needs to be done. We can either use technology to enhance trust and enhance engagement, or we can fall into the trap that many Members have said of allowing those of us who might for all good reasons take advantage and then that would undermine the parliamentary process and those elected to this place into the future. This has to be dealt with carefully. I think there can be great benefits but there are equally great pitfalls that we need to avoid.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Senator. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? Deputy Alves , but before I call on you, it occurs to me that I can probably be more refined in assessing whether there is a quorum or not by asking anyone participating remotely simply to note in the chat their immediate presence when I am doing a quorum. Now we are not quorate within the Chamber, so could we have one person indicating they are here? Could anyone else participating .. yes, in which case there are another 2 and so we are quorate. Thank you very much. No one else needs to indicate their presence at this point.

11. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier :

This puts me in a bit of a difficult position, I think, as P.P.C. Chair and Vice-Chair of the Diversity Forum. I can say that there have been some quite robust discussions about this. Even before the pandemic I do recall that in the Diversity Forum we did talk about proxy voting with regards to those that have difficulties getting into the Chamber or are maybe on maternity leave and other things that have been already mentioned in this debate. I think the point regarding foreseen and unforeseen circumstances that Members have raised in this debate is a very good one. I do not think I have ever said this publicly, but I do have an autoimmune disease and I know that there are others in this Chamber that also have autoimmune diseases similar to mine. At the moment, I have it quite well controlled, fortunately, but this is not always the case. There have been times where it has been difficult to work and that has been the case for me for many years, even before I was elected and when I was still teaching. This probably comes back to the point that was made by I think it was Deputy Le Hegarat as to whether we should, if we are not well enough, be working or not, but there were often times in teaching I know that I would drag myself into the classroom because it was easier than providing work for the supply teacher and not having it get done. So, I think it is really important that we consider that sometimes people have conditions that are not always linear and that there can be things like flare-ups from day to day. But I think whatever happens I want to echo what Deputy Ward said about applying these types of things equally and to our public service employees as well. I think there probably needs to be a lot more awareness of things like autoimmune diseases, which

are not visible. People really do not understand quite how debilitating it can be to have one of these diseases. In a way, I am grateful to COVID for highlighting things like fatigue, which is something I have suffered with the past 10 years. There are times where it is very difficult to drag myself out of bed and there are times it is very difficult to even fall asleep because of it. So, just drawing on some of the words as well that Deputy Le Hegarat said, moving on from that, regarding the summer recess and the public perception around the work that we do, there is a body of work that I am really grateful for that the States Greffe communications team have started around what Members do and our roles as Members and what that involves. I hope that that body of work can continue and that we can continue to raise that awareness with the public to make them aware that this is not a part- time job, as some may think it is, and what our job really involves. Personally, I do not know whether I am going to be here in the next Assembly or not. I do not know whether I am going to be part of P.P.C. or not, but I would like to give that assurance that these 2 options that Deputy Gardiner has brought .. and I am grateful to her for bringing this debate. I do not think the timing is great but it is what it is. I would like to give my assurances that I would like to see this looked into. I think ultimately it is not a simple option and those of you that have read the P.P.C. comments hopefully - only a page long again, we like to keep things simple and concise - it lists some of the different options there and the possible issues around each one of these things that are being proposed today. So whatever happens with this proposition I think members of P.P.C. will agree that we will be recommending that this is looked into in the next term. I think that once again if it had not been for COVID it would have probably been looked into already this term, but there is a lot of work and research that needs to be done into this.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I close the debate and all upon Deputy Gardiner to respond.

12. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier :

I am grateful to all Members for contributing to this debate. I will follow the last speaker, Deputy Alves ,  Chair of  P.P.C.,  because as the Deputy  mentioned, this proposition is a request, it is enforcement. It is asking to look into this and not to push it back for another 2, 3 or 4 years. It is something that will be there to look at. We are not making a decision, as Deputy Pamplin mentioned. We are not saying, as Deputy Ward and others mentioned, this is the decision. If you look at the comments of P.P.C., it is something that will need to be looked at and possibly to work out. Next, I agree 100 per cent with Deputy Le Hegarat , with the Constable of St. John , with Deputy Pamplin, with Deputy Ward , with the Deputy of St. Martin , but with all speakers we all agree our place to work is in the Assembly. This is our workplace, no discussion. Now, priorities were mentioned by the Chief Minister and by Deputy Perchard. I think our first and the most important priority is to represent our constituencies, represent the people who elected us. As the Chief Minister mentioned, the best place is in the Assembly, but if it is impossible .. and it was not a proposition about me, as I know that everybody mentioned, but it was several other occasions that happened to people. If we are not able to do it because of the circumstances out of our control and when remote participation is allowed generally, we need to look into this. Deputy Le Hegarat said let us look into if somebody would be able to ask urgent questions. I asked if somebody would ask already submitted questions and we are not allowed to ask .. nobody could ask submitted questions, but I had urgent questions and I reached out to several Members before this States because the urgent question anybody can ask, but everyone has their own urgent question. But that was my urgent question and I needed to represent my constituency, which I was not able to do. Somebody who was on Écréhous, they can represent constituents, and me in London could not represent constituents. There was no difference. So, it is a priority. The first priority is to represent constituents in the States online, and if not proxy. This proposition is asking to introduce these priorities. I am going back. I am not sure if Members remember the debate from 21st September 2021. I am sorry that I am going into the history, but I

decided to look into the Hansard of this debate this morning. Interestingly, we decided to continue remotely with hybrid attendance and I personally in this Assembly warned that this is dangerous. Deputy Morel said: "I do think we need another proposition to essentially put a sunset clause in there to say this needs to be revisited in 3 months or so-and-so because otherwise the danger is that this does drift and this does become the norm. I think we do need to be aware that there is a major weakness and a structural weakness, so to speak, in this proposition." I followed Deputy Morel and I said: "What does it mean, wish? Who wish? How wish?" "Everybody needs to have some structure in place" were my words. "We need to understand procedurally how it will work and what does it mean do not wish'." I also stated at that time that I would prefer to bring an amendment but we did not have time. All of us are responsible that it has drifted to the place, and yes, it looks like there might be some abuse, it becomes a luxury, it was some wish, but for me, because somebody did not follow the expected norm and wished to stay at home, now we try to say nobody stays at home. It is illogical that might some abuse the benefit of the system we are going to get anyone from this benefit.

[10:45]

During the pandemic we moved from very clear, one rigid rule to be here to completely no boundaries, wish rule. What this proposition is saying is let us get .. the Constable of St. Brelade said let us learn from the experience. Let us learn what has worked, let us learn what has not worked and the P.P.C. can make a decision. I absolutely agree, interestingly enough, with Senator Gorst and the Chief Minister. We have to embrace this technology. We have the technology. We do not need to throw it away now. We just need to find clear rules. Deputy Pamplin mentioned the robust system. It is right, this robust system was completely missing with our decision and it is all our responsibility that we did not go back, we did not bring an amendment, we did not revisit, and we let this drift. This proposition is saying let us embrace what we have. Let us have clarity and go forward. By the way, with special circumstances, Deputy Tadier yesterday raised a very important topic because I put unforeseen circumstances. But, for example, he mentioned Members or family members on treatment in the U.K. and the ability of the people .. they are not ill. If you are saying you are ill, or not, no, there are people with health complications that they might not be able physically to come to the Assembly but if there is remote participation that is allowed they are able to participate. If I break my leg, my head would work, but I am not sure that I will be able to go to the Assembly. By rejecting this proposition to consider flexibility we are saying a very clear message before the election to the public: people with disabilities and health complications will struggle here. Maybe I am taking it too far but this is what I feel. Proxy vote, I understand that is .. by the way, I am going to take the 2 parts separately, (a) and (b), so everyone will feel .. but about the proxy vote, yesterday .. I will justify kind of what Deputy Perchard said because yesterday Deputy Perchard said: "I would like to go and to put my child into bed. I do not want to stay until 8.00. It is not right for me, for my family and for the balance." But if we would have proxy voting and Deputy Perchard, for example, would be able to present her proposition at 4.00 p.m. and go for an hour to put her child to sleep and to say goodnight, Deputy Perchard would, according to the rules, robust rules, hand her proxy vote with the Greffier, with the Bailiff . We could continue to work and we have this flexibility and she does not need to be remote. There are lots of things to look at. Equality is not equal provision of the same thing. Different people have different access needs. We adopted, we learned from the experience. We must take the benefits. We must eliminate misuse and create rules that enable this new technology to bring us forward and enhance - I am echoing Senator Gorst - participation, enhance the contribution. I also in that particular debate thought that Deputy Tadier said that it was in 2008 when laptops were not allowed to be used in the States Chamber, only iPads, so we are moving. We will continue to go and evolve. What I am asking as I am closing my speech, and apologies if I have not mentioned everyone, comments of P.P.C. are very clear. The Privileges and Procedures Committee may wish to come back to the Assembly with another in-principle proposition to flesh out some of these details before amendments to the Standing Orders are lodged. It is possible. What

we are voting for is to put this consideration in the centre of the debate and to raise the next Public Accounts Committee to agree. So I move my proposition and ask for the appel and part (a) and part

2. separate.

The Bailiff :

You would like to take them separately? Deputy I. Gardiner :

Yes, please.

The Bailiff :

It seems to me that if either part (a) or part (b) are adopted, part (c) must be adopted as well, but we will have to take them separately just as a matter of structure, I think. So the vote is on part (a) of the proposition. The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote and those participating remotely to indicate their vote in a normal way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (a) has been adopted.

We now come on to part (b) and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (b) has been defeated.

The Bailiff :

Very well, I would be prepared to take (c) on a standing vote, it seems to me, because it must be .. [Aside] You call for the appel? Very well, the appel is called for and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote.

Deputy I. Gardiner :

3. is ratifying (a), just ..

The Bailiff :

I beg your pardon? Yes, (c) obviously is confined to (a) because (b) has fallen away because the Assembly has not adopted it. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (c) has been adopted.

The Bailiff :

Very well, before we move on, during the course of the debate on this last proposition we had entirely inappropriate if dulcet tones from the bell of HMS Jersey, which I understand was rung by a Member of the Assembly not in the Chamber. It was certainly heard by me and I believe it was heard in this area. I will not name the Member but I would expect a contribution to the Greffier's fund. It is clearly inappropriate to sound the bell when the sound might reach into the Chamber. It is within the precincts of the Assembly and order of decorum should apply.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I am happy, Sir. I was having a lively conversation with the Deputy of St. Peter and the bell was inadvertently rung, for which I take full responsibility. It was certainly not an intentional loud sound but it has a habit of reverberating through the building, for which I apologise.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much for confirming that. It is the nature of a bell that it is meant to be heard. [Laughter] If it could not be heard, it would not be much of a bell.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

I have learnt that, Sir, thank you.

STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

3. The Chief Minister regarding the response to the COVID-19 pandemic The Bailiff :

We now come on to a statement to be made by the Chief Minister. Members will, I hope, have received and had the opportunity to study at length the text and I call on you, Chief Minister.

3.1  Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister):

Sorry, Sir, your last comment has unfortunately stuck in my mind. Can I thank you, Sir, for the permission to do the statement today? We had hoped to do it at the end of yesterday afternoon but obviously time did not permit. So, from Friday the legal requirement for mandatory self-isolation for positive cases will end. However, we will continue to advise anyone who is positive to stay at home for a minimum of 5 days and test regularly, but the legal requirement will end. Last week, we also announced further relaxations to the COVID-19 schools policy, which has seen the removal of masks and bubbles in education settings and a reduction to the frequency of L.F.T. (lateral flow test) testing for students and staff. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell, S.T.A.C., met for the last time last week as part of our de-escalation. While the cell will no longer be meeting weekly, they are remaining on standby and a subgroup has been set up to continue to co-ordinate matters. S.T.A.C. members have been fundamental to providing scientific and technical advice to Government throughout the pandemic response and I would like to thank each and every one of them. Their advice has been integral to the decisions we have taken as Competent Authority Ministers and the response we have marshalled as an Island. In line with the rest of our de-escalation activity, we will also be changing the frequency of the COVID-19 data reporting from daily to once a week. The last daily update will be published tomorrow, Friday, and from next week we will move to weekly reporting, which will be published online every Thursday. It has been a little over 2 years since the W.H.O. (World Health Organization) declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11th March 2020. Members may recall those crucial months in March and April when Island life changed so rapidly. Within 24 hours of the W.H.O.'s announcement, the Emergencies Council had met and agreed a support package for businesses. Within days we had introduced social distancing for over-65s and opened an on-Island testing facility. In the weeks that followed we outlined a £180 million support package for Islanders, established a community taskforce, introduced a border testing regime and constructed the Nightingale hospital. Shortly before the end of 2020, we began our successful vaccine programme, delivering the first doses ahead of schedule. Since those early days, almost every aspect of Island life has been affected to some degree and every Islander has had a part to play in our response. I am proud of how Jersey has acted as a community during the pandemic and I want to thank all Islanders for their diligence, their care and for their patience over the last 2 years. It has been a difficult period for us all. It is in large part thanks to the efforts of Islanders in following the guidance and especially the majority who have gone out and got vaccinated that we are now in the position to make one final relaxation in our measures. As we learn to live with COVID-19 we will need to remain vigilant to any significant developments in the global response to the virus. It is remarkable to think of just how far we have come as an Assembly, as a Government and as an Island during the course of the pandemic.

[11:00]

We have worked at speed to bring together experts from across the Government and beyond in the face of this virus. We have worked across Government to establish our excellent Track and Trace programme. We have worked with Microsoft to develop an internationally recognised border testing regime, among other things. We have worked with Mastercard to develop the very successful Spend Local card. This was the first of its kind and was later replicated in Northern Ireland. This Assembly during the pandemic has worked at pace as we have tabled urgent COVID-19 related legislation and became the first Parliament in the Commonwealth to meet entirely online. I would like to thank Members for their support and their challenge respectively, and I also want to thank you, Sir, His Excellency and the States Greffe for all of your support and advice as we have adjusted to new ways of working. Today, we remain in a strong place following the emergency phase of the pandemic. Throughout, we have protected lives and livelihoods and we remain in a good financial position. COVID-19 has cost our Island over £300 million in both lost income and our wide range of measures to support lives and livelihoods over 2020 and 2021. However, the latest projections are that COVID- 19 borrowing will be vastly improved and we will completely repay the debt by the end of 2025. Yesterday I published a much fuller report, providing an update on our response to the conflict in Ukraine and which also reflects on the Government's work over the last 4 years and where I extend my thanks to a number of Members, including Scrutiny. In concluding, however, I would like to pay tribute to the Council of Ministers and to our Assistant Ministers who have ably supported our portfolios. I have been told on a number of occasions that I was unlucky to be Chief Minister during this time and I do not regard it that way. It has been an absolute privilege to lead the Government during this time with the team that I have had. That is what the role of Chief Minister means and we have definitely stepped up to the mark. I have been very fortunate to have the love and support of my family, in particular my wife and my children, without whom this role would have been immeasurably harder. It is often easier, as we all know, for the negative voice to sound the loudest but that is when one needs to stand back and look at the bigger picture. I look for solutions to implement change and there is one phrase that I think does sum up what we should be about as States Members: it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. It is to make a positive contribution in our role in this Assembly. If there is one lasting impression that I would like to leave behind, it would be that we have worked determinedly to take the long-term generational decisions which will ultimately only be to the significant benefit of Islanders now and those Islanders of the future. We have saved lives, we have protected livelihoods and we leave the Island in a strong financial position after some of the biggest challenges we have seen in our lifetimes. As custodians, we hand over to the next Assembly and the next Council of Ministers to build on what we have done. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Chief Minister. There is now a period of 15 minutes in which Members can ask questions of the Chief Minister on anything in this statement. Does any Member wish to ask questions? For some reason your light does not show up on here, but Deputy Ward .

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I suspected that might be happening. Thank you. First of all, I would just like to say that one of the things I would thank is those staff who have provided vaccines. I have said it before and I will say it again after the Chief Minister: thank you to science for being there for developing these things because without them I think we would be in a very different place. The question I would like to ask the Chief Minister regards there is now not a requirement to isolate legally but there is advice to isolate. I am just concerned on what the Chief Minister's advice can be for members of staff who perhaps may get pressure - because there has been a lot of pressure on workplaces for staff to be there

- if they do feel they are COVID positive to go back to work when they feel they should not because there is no mandatory requirement now. Good employers will not do that but let us be realistic about the world, there are some employers out there who might take advantage. I just wonder what the Chief Minister would say to them and whether he could just urge them to be on the side of their employees when they need to be.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I think what we are trying to say is that where we are now is we are basically saying, and I have said this before, that the impact of COVID because of vaccination is now less than if we had a bad flu season and, therefore, one would expect .. that is why we are moving away from a mandatory position to an advisory position. I think what we do need to recognise - and we know there are at least 2 Members that I can think of straightaway who are presently testing positive and are not feeling particularly well or at various points have not felt particularly well with this virus - is it is going to depend very much on the individual circumstances. We have made sure that there will be a modification of I think it is the short-term benefit, that in other words it will apply in terms of sickness, and I think all we can say or my advice is be sensible, to both employees and employers, and it will depend on the circumstances that people are operating in. Somebody can be positive and be feeling absolutely fine. Are they able to work? Are they able to work in a circumstance where they are not going to pass it on to other individuals? There will be others who will be feeling absolutely terrible and obviously my advice would very much be that they should be isolating while they recover. I think that is all I can say. It is very much in the hands of the individual relationships between employers and employees and people should be sensible.

2. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

My question is related to a statement that Dr. Muscat is releasing that was brought up yesterday in response to a website that is claiming the reported side effects from COVID-19. Can the Chief Minister echo those words and draw light to them in reaction? I know it was not in his speech but I think I would be grateful.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, I am very happy to. Obviously, Members will have had a copy of the press release and very much what it is saying is that if there are side effects that they should be reported through the standard channel, which is what is known as the yellow card scheme. Frankly, I have not looked at the website in question, but on the basis that there has been a note issued I would treat any of those ad hoc informal websites with a fair degree of caution and stick to the official channels reporting these type of things.

3. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

On the subject of Dr. Muscat, it gives us, the Assembly, another opportunity to thank his service specifically and his team. Given in the light that S.T.A.C. is standing down and his role as deputy medical officer of health, can the Chief Minister allude to his role going forward in terms of the new public health directive that is in place? Because the Island have grown with a very grateful heart to Dr. Muscat and will look forward to seeing him in the coming periods and months.

The Bailiff :

Only insofar as it relates to COVID you could answer that, Chief Minister. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, Sir. Obviously, I am always very leery about commenting on individual members of staff so I cannot go into that territory, but what I will do in joining the Deputy , and I hope the entire Assembly will agree, is a massive vote of thanks not only to Dr. Muscat but all the members of staff [Approbation] and I will say to Ministers as well and to this Assembly for how we have come through in dealing with COVID, but as I say particularly to all of the teams and all the medical professionals and all the others who have helped Islanders as a whole.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yesterday we learnt that in the U.K. the courts had ruled that the transfer of people from hospital beds into care homes was not a lawful act. To what extent does the Minister believe we are in a similar position to the U.K. in that we have acted unlawfully, perhaps?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I obviously will be taking some further advice, as will the Minister for Health and Social Services, but my understanding is that the issue centred fundamentally around the lack of testing, but I would want to get further details before commenting any further.

The Bailiff :

Deputy Young, you are asking for a question and you are a Minister. It is not customary for Ministers to ask questions of Ministers.

Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : No, Sir, but it is about COVID.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, what I am saying is I am not going to allow you to ask a question because you are a Minister.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, but, Sir, I was not a Competent Minister and this is about a civil matter. The Bailiff :

But you are still a Minister and, therefore, you can get whatever information from the Chief Minister you want, either in the Assembly or out of it.

Deputy J.H. Young:

I accept your ruling, Sir, but it is a matter of public concern that I wanted to raise.

5. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

The statement referred to a reduction in the frequency of use for lateral flow testing for students and staff. More broadly on the issue of L.F.T.s, could the Minister outline what the plans are for their supply for our community as they do, of course, remain an important way where members of the community can take responsibility and take whatever precautions they feel necessary? Could he just let us know what the future for that provision is?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

In the present circumstance my understanding is they continue free until June at the earliest and essentially we will continue to monitor as circumstances continue to evolve. Without making any commitments at this stage. I am absolutely sympathetic to the comments that Senator Mézec has made. There will come a point obviously when we need to make that transition across but we have not yet decided, I do not think, is will that be the end of the journey or will it carry on longer? It will depend on what the state of the virus is, I think, at that time.

6. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Also in the United Kingdom they have been planning to reveal to reduce the public health teams that were put in place to manage the pandemic, has the Chief Minister in discussions because I have been trying to read it in the statement, are there any plans of changing any of the things that have been put in place to support the Government in easing through the handling of the pandemic in these transitional periods, any reductions of staff or loss of service specifically around the pandemic?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Again, I am always very cautious about announcing things involving staff before the relevant discussions take place. But it is a matter, I think, if not common sense rather than public knowledge that as, for example, the pressures on contact tracing and the requirement to do much more testing has seen increases of staff at various times. As that requirement reduced, it is likely that that particular role will diminish. The question will be is at what level we keep a core and also then we have got some fantastic people in the contact-tracing side and the question will then be - and there have been instructions around that - whether we can take those skills and apply them elsewhere within the organisation, effectively backfilling some of the vacancies that we already carry. I think that is about as far as I can go in the public domain.

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

I would just ask the Chief Minister whether he thinks it is right that doctors, when people have been reporting to them COVID effects of, say, vaccination in fact I might just add in particular, and I have raised this before, one person contacted the helpline and was told: "You do not report to us, you have to go through your doctor." They did, the doctor phoned them back and they got a bill for £36 just for simply reporting that they had had some side effects. Does the Chief Minister think this is acceptable?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I hate to say this, I think before I commented on that, I would like to know the specifics behind the circumstances before I comment publicly but I am happy to discuss with the Deputy .

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sorry, it was something I reported to the Minister for Health and Social Services but no action has been taken by him or his officers.

The Bailiff :

That is not a supplemental question, that is a statement by way of a speech, so you must refrain from that.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern :

What progress, if any, has been made in identifying the impact of long-term COVID on our community? When does the Minister intend to report back to this Chamber in order to better analyse the impact of long-term COVID?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The data-gathering in terms of long-term COVID, I cannot remember the date it started but there was an effort to obviously identify people who are defined as having long-term COVID and those have fed into some of the statistics, I think, that have been given to Members in the past. In terms of dealing with the impact on individuals of long-term COVID, part of the health and social recovery funding that the Assembly agreed at the end of last year, as well as dealing with things like improvements in mental health, things like countryside access, which the Connétable of St. Peter is chairing, which is all about community engagement.

[11:15]

Again, hopefully volunteers and, again, getting out into the open and nature, one of the programmes is about assisting people who have been identified as having long-term COVID. In terms of an assessment, I will have to come back to the Deputy on that in terms of when that is due to be reported. But my expectation it will be during the summer months.

9. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

My question is in relation to the commitment to addressing the effects of the mental health of the effects of the pandemic on Islanders, which I believe the Minister was alluding to earlier. Has he read our review of mental health services, which we do touch on this subject and we commit to the findings of and working together the impacts and addressing those concerns that we have raised?

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Since it has been released I have not yet had a chance to fully go all the way through it. It is in my reading pile, I do promise that and I will at the earliest be obviously reading the summary and the findings and recommendations. However, as I hope the Deputy will recall and as I have just said, we have specifically put money aside and funding aside through programmes, some of which are starting and some of which are due to start over the next few weeks, which is about what we call the COVID recovery affecting health and social recovery, and that is very much particularly with mental health in mind. Some of the programmes are designed to be things like encouraging people to go into sort of arts territory or, as I said, engaging with nature and really just trying to do something different but in terms of dealing with, fundamentally, the recovery of our community from what has been a really, really tough 2 years.

10. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Following on that, is the communication of the statistics available, especially when it comes to the very difficult subject of suicide? The numbers recently released by the Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom and The Lancet journal and how that is appropriately used in the terms around the effects of serious things like lockdown and the effects, that the statistics and the actual evidence is put out there as effective communication.

Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Sorry, I am not entirely sure what the actual question was. Is it: are we going to be making sure we handle those sorts of statistics carefully? All right. Obviously, yes. I will make the point, although I think what the Deputy is also referring to is longer-term consequences. But obviously it is worth remembering - and it is a horrible subject - that in terms of deaths, and in 2020 we had no excess deaths and in 2021 it was either within the boundaries of normality, if that is, again, the right expression or, again, it was not excess. For 2022 the feedback we have had so far is very much similar. That is why we are very, very confident - is the wrong expression - that in stating that we have protected lives and saved lives during the last 2¼ years and that obviously has been the focus. But obviously we all recognise that there will be longer-term consequences and that is why we put the programmes in place. My expectation is that data would be gathered, would be considered very carefully by public health, for example, by the Minister for Health and Social Services and his successors, and then if further programmes are required obviously we need to understand those circumstances. I think the big thing is we have things like the Listening Lounge, we do have other measures. If people are feeling in difficult circumstances speak to friends, if they are really stuck speak to their political representative, to get those contact details as to who they need to go to. But the Listening Lounge, I would suggest, would be a very good first port of call.

The Bailiff :

It brings the time allocated for questions to the Chief Minister on this has come to an end. Very well, the next of Public Business is

Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Sir, sorry to interrupt you, could I ask when in the Order Paper you were thinking of allowing me to ask the urgent oral question which you have approved?

The Bailiff :

I thought first thing tomorrow morning would be the appropriate time, Senator. It gives the recipient of the question the opportunity to consider an answer, rather than having it sprung on them, as it were.

Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Thank you, I appreciate that.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

4. Greffier of the States: Consent to Appointment (P.72/2022) The Bailiff :

Very well, we now come on to P.72, which is an in-camera debate and I must ask anyone who is not a Member of the Assembly to leave the Assembly now. I do not know if anyone is in the press box who needs to leave.

[Debate proceeded in camera] The Bailiff :

That is the end of the in-camera debate, therefore, I open the Assembly again to attendance by members of the public and permit people to return in their droves to the public gallery. [Laughter] I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the usual way. I am afraid we cannot register the votes electronically for some reason, so we will have the appel nominal,  which  the  Greffier  will  now  call. Deputy   Gardiner ,  you  have  not  voted  because electronically we cannot do it. I have just explained, we need the appel nominal, so everyone's name will be called in order and they will have to indicate pour, contre or abstain. Very well, appel nominal. The proposition has been adopted.

[Approbation] I do not know if Mrs. Hart is in the precinct of the Assembly but if she is she can be told it is safe to return.  

5. Amendment to Standing Orders - Machinery of Government Sub-Committee (P.64/2022)

- as amended (P.64/2022 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

The next item of Public Business is Amendments to Standing Orders - Machinery of Government Sub-Committee, P.64, lodged by Senator Vallois. Before I ask the Greffier to read the proposition, Senator, there is one amendment lodged by the Council of Ministers, are you accepting that? Yes. In which case do Members agree that the proposition to be taken as read as amended by the amendment of the Council of Ministers? No vote of dissent on that, in which case I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended.

The Assistant Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to make the following amendment to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, with effect from 22nd June 2022.

5.1  Senator T.A. Vallois:

I am proposing this amendment to Standing Orders following the work of the P.P.C. Democratic Accountability and Government Sub-Committee. Members may remember during the debate that Deputy Young initiated in September 2020. I did suggest that there should be a subcommittee at that point established by P.P.C. in order to keep under review the machinery of Government and to carry out the work that had been completed by any such subcommittee. As we all know, there have been a number of changes to our system of Government since 1998. The system itself and how it works has been a recurring topic of conversation among Members, particularly since the Ministerial system was introduced. In fact propositions have been lodged by a number of Members to change, amend

or overhaul the system since 2005. During the subcommittee's review views were varied as to whether the system is right for Jersey or whether improvements to its structure could be made. There was insufficient time to lodge the necessary legislation to bring forward some of the recommendations of R.23/2022, published by the subcommittee. As much of the work has been carried out, creating such a committee will enable the next Assembly to assess and bring forward the necessary legislation, rather than just carry out another review. The committee could quite neatly work in conjunction with the work that was agreed on Tuesday by Deputy Young's proposition on Ministerial responsibilities, as this will not just be for officers or the Government to do but a good cross-section of the Assembly to ensure there is an appropriate check and balance. A standing subcommittee of P.P.C. would ensure a direct avenue is available to Members to raise concerns and suggest areas for improvement in each term. I have no issue with regards to the Council of Minister's amendment; I think it is only appropriate. I would expect Executive Members to be party to that committee anyway, as we have seen with this subcommittee this term. On that note I look forward to any questions or comments Members may wish to make and I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to say that this proposition and the next one, P.65, both of them have my support. They are straightforward, as far as I am concerned and make good sense, not least of which I expect from Senator Vallois anyway and always to the point, something I can support. I would just like to thank her for the work that she has undertaken on this because it is absolutely paramount that we do things correctly. I think the monitoring of the arm's length organisations is essential. Sorry, I beg your pardon, Sir, I have got P.65 open in front of me.

The Bailiff :

Yes.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

Yes, I am supporting that one as well.

The Bailiff :

You are not going to start your speech again, are you? The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I am ahead of myself, Sir. This is to keep under review the machinery of Government and that is why I mentioned the work that she has carried out on this. Because it took me back when I read it that it is 17 years since this has been in operation and during that time we have attempted to make changes that are beneficial and I see this as being another one of those. Sorry, for jumping ahead there. Maybe I will not speak on P.65 but I will be supporting it.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak on the proposition, I close the debate and call upon Senator Vallois to respond.

2. Senator T.A. Vallois:

Very briefly, I would just like to say thank you to the Constable of St. Lawrence for her comments and her kind comments towards the work that we have done as a subcommittee this term. I would just like to express my thanks to the subcommittee who was made up of Senator Gorst , Senator Mézec , the Constable of St. Mary , Deputy Morel and myself. It was an interesting group of members, interesting discussions and, hopefully, with this committee in the next Assembly they can bring forward the action that is necessary to create the improvements that we request. I make the proposition and ask for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members participating remotely to vote in the chat in the normal way. I am sorry, we are in exactly the same position as we were on the last occasion. We are going to have to do an appel nominal and, therefore, Members remotely when they listen for their names and participate over the microphone when your name is called and I call for the appel nominal.

[11:45]

The proposition has been adopted.

6. Monitoring of Arm's Length Organisations and Green and White Papers (P.65/2022) The Bailiff :

The next item of Public Business is the Amendment to Standing Orders - Machinery of Government

one moment, I am on the wrong page, Monitoring of Arm's Length Organisations and Green and White Papers. It can happen to anyone.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence : To the best of us, Sir.

The Bailiff :

P.65, lodged by the same Senator. There is one amendment by the Council of Ministers, are you accepting that amendment?

Senator T.A. Vallois:

I am, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to take the proposition read as amended? I ask the Greffier to read the proposition. The Assistant Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) that a committee comprising Executive and non-Executive States Members should be established in order to monitor the performance of arm's length organisations and to support responsible Ministers in the Assembly in discharging their responsibilities and to request the Council of Ministers to commission officers to draw up options for this, so that a projet can be considered by the next States Assembly by no later than 31st October 2022; (b) that clear, agreed criteria for the preparation of initial consultations on policy or legislative proposals and detailed proposals for legislation should be established and to request the Chief Minister to commission officers to draw up proposals for this with a view to a report being presented to the States on the outcome of the work by no later than 30th September 2022.

6.1  Senator T.A. Vallois:

Hopefully this one is as swift as the last. I thank Members for supporting me on the last proposition. There are 2 parts to this proposition. The first proposes that a committee comprising States Members should be established in order to monitor the performance of arm's length organisations and the second relates to consultation. I will take the first, what was referred to as a supervisory committee is now amended to Executive and non-Executive Members' Committee. This committee will be required to monitor the performance of arm's length organisations. I propose this in line with recommendation 7 of P.P.C.'s Democratic Accountability and Government Sub-Committee. During the subcommittee's review a number of views were expressed on the governance arrangements

around arm's length organisations and specified organisations. Many Members commented that there is a lack of oversight and a lack of governance and accountability of how they operate. As shareholder at Treasury, for example - and I thank the Minister for Treasury and Resources for finally publishing the report of the final memorandum of understanding through our States-owned companies under R.56/2022 - it has historically been the case that oversight of M.O.U.s (memorandums of understanding) was purely a Treasury function. It is good to see some changes to recognise the need to take account of States policies and decisions, rather than just what the shareholder return is now. Some Members called for better governance arrangements to be put in place where the States of Jersey is a shareholder. If this is accepted by the Assembly, the Minister for Treasury and Resources would commission officers to draw up options for the establishment of this committee so that action can be taken by the next Assembly. The second part to the proposition is with regards to consultation. I did refer to it in the original proposition as Green and White Papers. I am not going to argue over words, what we call them or what we do not call them but this sits fairly well with a previous proposition we debated on the engagement code with Scrutiny. Because if there is better organisation around how consultation and how policy development is done, then the way that Scrutiny works with the Government can speed some of the requirements up around certain propositions, whether that is legislation or whether that is policy. The second part of the proposition calls for the creation of a clear, agreed criteria for the preparation of what I refer to as Green and White Papers, which is in line with the recommendation 24 of the subcommittee. It is acknowledged that legislative scrutiny has improved in recent years to become a routine part of Scrutiny work. But there was a collective view from Members during the subcommittee's review that it is still held back by a lack of time and resources. At the time the subcommittee recalled that the former Comptroller and Auditor General had suggested that clear principles for the preparation of Green and White Papers should be established in order to trigger the timely review of Scrutiny Panels in advance of preparation of draft legislation. This, I hope, would assist with the code of engagement that was only agreed by this Assembly on Tuesday with regards to the policy pipeline and legislation around priorities and timelines. If this is accepted the Chief Minister would commission officers to draw up proposals for criteria on how consultation, hopefully taking into account Scrutiny, will work with a view to presenting a report to the States on the outcome of the work. I am happy to answer any questions about these proposals at the end of the debate and I am prepared, if necessary, to take votes separately on each paragraph. I make the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Before we proceed to the debate we are going to have a brief pause because the Greffier designate will need to switch off the machine and turn it on again so we can record and go back to our voting system. During that period no one will be able to be heard over the microphone. For a period of uncharacteristic silence if we could sit here while that exercise takes place.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Sir, does that also require those who are operating remotely to come out and then come back in again? The Bailiff :

No, it is not necessary if you are participating remotely to come out, it is purely the internal system, Deputy Higgins. Right. What we are going to do is would everyone press their voting buttons as if voting and we are just going to work out if it is working all right. Yes. It is quite funny because a number of people have voted against that. [Laughter] In which case if we cancel that vote and then we will proceed as normal. Senator Moore , you wish to speak.

1. Senator K.L. Moore :

I do not want to prolong the debate, I simply want to speak in favour of Senator Vallois' very pragmatic follow-up on her excellent report on the work of the Democratic Accountability Sub- Committee. The Minister will be greatly missed by myself. She has brought to her role a great eye for detail and what should absolutely be required from each and every one of us but she has in spades an ability to provide excellent oversight and a commitment to governance, which is exemplary and good governance of course at that. These are, in my view, very simple, straightforward but also much needed measures. Perhaps we could even go further and to consider in the future extending the oversight committee to consider the oversight of all bodies that are subject to service-level agreements because in my work it has become apparent at times that not all of those bodies and their service level agreements are monitored sufficiently as time progresses. I think the public would benefit greatly if there was greater and more diligent oversight of them. This of course is a very inclusive suggestion and I hope that it will bring Members of a future Assembly together and focus, encourage greater focus on the delivery of and performance for the public. The matter of consultation has been one that has raised many times by the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel during this Assembly and its life. We have struggled many times and included on many occasions a recommendation that there should be greater process and thought given to consultation of certain items. I think that Senator Vallois' proposition will certainly help guide Members of the Government to ensure that they do not conduct consultations on major changes in too quick a timeframe and also that they do not conduct them over the summer period, which although they are in their own guidelines sadly this Government have had a tendency to avoid them. So I applaud Senator Vallois for her efforts and am very happy to support the proposition.

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement :

I will be supporting this amended proposition and I thank the Senator for accepting the Council of Ministers' amendment. However, I just want to address some of the points the Senator has asserted in the report accompanying her position. The Senator uses the terms "arm's length organisations" and "specified organisations" liberally in her report but then states that Members expressed the view that better governance arrangements should be put in place for the relevant A.L.O.s (arm's length organisations) and S.O.s (specified organisations) where the States of Jersey is a shareholder. That phrase narrows the focus of this proposition down to the 5 States wholly-owned entities and 2 majority-owned entities but dozens of other arm's length organisations and specified organisations do not have the States of Jersey as shareholder. I am certain that was not the intention of the Senator but, again, when using the Guernsey Trading Supervisory Board as an example, references that this board carries out the States role as shareholder. Perhaps in the Senator's summing up she could confirm that her intention is to include all the A.L.O.s, not just those that have the States as a shareholder, which would limit the effect to just 7 entities. I also want to come back to the reference in the report to an alleged lack of oversight, governance and accountability as to how the A.L.O.s operate. Specifically I want to address the mischaracterisation that the 7 States-owned entities operate with a lack of oversight. Pursuant to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law, responsibilities for these States-owned entities is delegated to me to represent the States of Jersey as shareholder. My relationship with the wholly owned S.O.E. (States-owned entities) is governed by detailed memoranda of understanding. Returning to the umbrella terms of A.L.O.s and specified organisations, I would note that there are already groups, committees, in place that have been formed to provide oversight to the wider A.L.O. family, including the grant-funded bodies. In many instances these groups were formed in response to recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. A prime example of this is A.L.B.O.B. (Arm's Length Bodies Oversight Board). A.L.B.O.B was specifically formed to do what its named suggests, to provide oversight to the A.L.O.s. While admittedly membership of A.L.B.O.B. is the C.E.O., director generals and other civil servants it does report on its work and makes recommendations to the Council of Ministers. There are other policy groups, such as the digital policy unit and the Minister for Housing and Communities'

new housing groups. Further, the Regeneration Steering Group provides additional oversight to S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Board) on its regeneration and development activities.

[12:00]

So while I urge Members to vote in favour of the amended proposition I would stress that much of the group work has already been done.

3. The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

I found the words of the Minister for Treasury and Resources very helpful there. The only comment I have on this is that in accepting the amendment the proposition has now lost the word "supervisory" so it is no longer a supervisory committee but gained the words "to support responsible Ministers". In my view, while the new committee would presumably be supporting the responsible Ministers, my understanding of the way I read the original proposition was that this new committee would be there to - it certainly says - monitor. So if they are monitoring for good governance they must be asking questions, they must be questioning the way things are done, looking closely at whether things are being done not only correctly but whether they can be improved. When I read the word "support" I believe that that is probably what will happen but I would certainly hope that when the Senator sums up she will give her view of what that amendment actually would mean in relation to the new committee, because you cannot support unconditionally; you can support conditionally when you are able to make recommendations for change for improvement. Indeed, having said that, you could be supporting the responsible Ministers by say: "Hold on, you are totally wrong" or: "This is being done completely incorrectly, stop". That is really the way I would view this committee. Not as a support by means of agreeing all the time with the responsible Minister. I am sure that is probably how the Senator views this. Of course, when the options have been drawn up and the next States Assembly looks at them, which will be no later than 31st October, they will need to look at them closely to ensure that it is not just an unconditional "We agree with the Minister" situation.

4. Deputy J.H. Young:

I think this is very far-thinking and an excellent proposal to, I think, help future Governments to do what I would call joining up the dots. I think we have rather, in recent years, adopted a very much devolved style of Government where we create bodies and we hand over new powers and responsibilities to them. Understandably those bodies, when that has happened, they are generally full of enthusiasm and going in the direction they wish to go sorry, I will start again. A very pragmatic proposal which will help Government join up the dots because we have, in recent years set in place a lot of arm's length structures to, if you like, devolve all sorts of important functions that we want done. Of course those bodies, when they are organised, obviously present major challenges in how we co-ordinate that work together, linked into overall government policies. I think the work of the subcommittee has identified that there does need to be improvements in this area. I think they have adopted the model here based on what Guernsey does, that sister island, that is not perfect, and I accept the debate over the use of supervision. I think the Connétable of St. Lawrence is right to raise this issue about how this new committee is going to be. I am relying on the words that it says to monitor the performance and I do not think that should imply a passive role that just says: "Here is body X that says they are going to do this." I am hoping this body will not only say: "How well or poorly did you do this?" but was it the right thing. There are lots of examples where things are done very well but they are the wrong thing. I think this is done and the other element of this, which I think is extremely important, the proposal, because it includes both non-Executive and Executive members now with the amendment will help I think improve this link about Scrutiny or Back-Bench Members, which I think is about greater inclusion to give those Members access through. Because although I accept what the Minister for Treasury and Resources is saying that there is accountability in the current arrangements, I personally do not think - and this is not a criticism, it is an observation - it is easily accessible to all Members and I think one of the questions that I would

like to hear from the Senator on this is whether or not it is proposed that this body will, in its proceedings, be open. Open to a wider audience to be able to see what sort of dialogue goes on that interaction. Because I think it is probably inevitable that it will not be down to the fine detail of these operations, my expectation is it will be at the very top level of what is this organisation trying to do and what are its priorities and what are its goals. I think there will need to be interactions with the Ministers involved. I think there is another question I would like to hear from the Senator. The paper makes reference to M.O.U.s, which up until now I think each of these bodies, I am not sure if they all have them but obviously these set the rules for, if you like, the way the body operates. If we take an example, it is only an example and I am not raising any issue with this particular body but using it as an example, S.o.J.D.C. has an example of a memorandum of an agreement and in that case that memorandum of agreement was embodied in the States proposition. I would like to hear what the mechanics being proposed for this subcommittee are to be able to ensure that they can input and they are not faced with situation: "Well, sorry we cannot alter this, there is no effect, we cannot do any change because it is already stuck in the States decision." I think the formulation of amendments and changes to the M.O.U.s of those bodies that are necessary, what are the mechanics of doing that? It is a very important thing going forward. I think it is going to be a major task and I would like to hope that, if it is not an open body, that we get regular - when I say "we" the public because it will not be me I will not be in the Assembly - the public get regular reports on the work of this subcommittee. I think it really is important. It is a big step forward. I congratulate the subcommittee and the Senator in bringing it. I hope I am not scaring off too many Ministers who may fear this. The other thing, on the Green and White Papers, I think yesterday I used the phrase about and I think this is something that should be thought about on the second part of the proposition, about how we develop policy proposals. I would like to see some rules on spreadsheets, rules by spreadsheets sorry, not spreadsheets, PowerPoints. I wish I had a penny for every PowerPoint presentation I have seen in the last 4 years. I wonder what happens to these because what happens is we get, you know, a 100- page paper, maybe even more, 1,000-page paper at times and you get really such succinct PowerPoint presentations that gives you the guts of it. What it is about. We made a lot of use of that and it has been pretty hard during remote participation because it is easier, just bung up the spreadsheet, have a meeting, talk about it. So I would like to think that this group will start to have a think about how accessible some of this work is to the public because the whole point of Green Papers, in my memory based on Governments elsewhere, it is a public process. You publish a policy document, you put it out there and you take the views and wait and see what reaction you get. Then, if you get a bad reaction it does not go anywhere, that is the end of the day and you come back with another one. But if it generally finds good ground then you work up the proposal into a detailed proposal, the mechanics of it, into a White Paper. There are a lot of advantages about that because it means you do not waste a lot of money doing detailed proposals that are just going to fall flat. It is a really efficient way of doing it. I am hoping that perhaps I am going too far here because I am kind of almost getting into the role of thinking how this committee might work. I would like Senator Vallois to just comment a bit about any thoughts that the Senator has on that. I think it is a good move and hope Members on both sides will not only see its importance where they surely do but embrace the intention, which is to really try and join up I certainly interpret an arm's length organisation is what it says. Where we have effectively devolved is a function where we need that body to be able to co-ordinate or link in to what the political priorities are after the election set by Members of this Assembly. Thank you, I am very supportive of this.

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, did you wish to proffer advice to the Assembly? Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, just briefly before the Senator responds and sums up. It is on this question of the removal of the word "supervisory", which was raised by the Constable of St. Lawrence and also has been touched on by Deputy Young just a moment ago. I just wish to offer the advice that the removal of the word "supervisory" is an important one because the word "supervisory" is close to direction and it is important in my advice that there is a distinction between monitoring and direction in the case of arm's length organisations. I hope that advice is of assistance to Members generally and to Senator Vallois in her summing up.