States Meeting Transcript - 29th April 2022

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT FRIDAY, 29th APRIL 2022

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

1.1 Mrs. L. Hart , Greffier of the States - Swearing-in ........................................ 4 QUESTIONS ......................................................................................... 4

2. Urgent Oral Question ....................................................................... 4

2.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding .. ......... 4

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): .................. 5

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................... 5
2. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ....................................................... 5
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 5
4. Deputy M. Tadier :.......................................................................... 6
5. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : ........................................................... 6
6. Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour : ...................................................... 6
7. Deputy R.J. Ward : ......................................................................... 7
8. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................... 7

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 7

3. Channel Islands Lottery: Allocation of 2021 Proceeds (P.68/2022) ...................... 7

3.1 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur): ................................................. 8

1. The Deputy of St. Mary : ................................................................... 8
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ......................................................................... 9
3. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...................................................................... 9
4. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ..................................................................... 9
5. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 10
6. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 10
7. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 10
8. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 10

4. Public Sector Employment Contracts (P.71/2020) - as amended (P.71/2020 Amd.) .. 12

4.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 13

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ......................................................... 26
2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ................................................................ 26
3. Senator I.J. Gorst : ........................................................................ 27
4. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 28
5. Senator T.A. Vallois: ..................................................................... 28
6. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 30

7. The Connétable of St. Ouen :.............................................................. 32
8. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 33
9. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 34
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 35
11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ...................................................... 35
12. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 36 The Connétable of St. John : .................................................................... 38 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 38
13. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 39
14. Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 39
15. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ................................................................. 40

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 47 Deputy J.H. Perchard: .......................................................................... 48 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 48 Deputy J.H. Perchard: .......................................................................... 49

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 50 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier : ................................................................ 50 The Connétable of St. Brelade : ................................................................. 50 Senator K.L. Moore :............................................................................ 50 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ................................................................ 51 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...................................................................... 51 Deputy C.S. Alves : .............................................................................. 51

5. Carbon Neutral Roadmap (P.74/2022) - as amended (P.74/2022 Amd., P.74/2022 Amd.Amd.) ................................................................................. 51

5.1 Deputy J.H. Perchard: .................................................................... 52

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................... 54
2. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 55
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 56
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 58
5. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 58
6. Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity : .................................................... 61
7. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 61
8. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 62
9. The Deputy of Grouville : ................................................................. 63
10. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :.................................................... 64
11. Deputy J.H. Perchard: ................................................................. 65

6. Parishes' Green Waste (P.73/2022) - as amended (P.73/2022 Amd.) ................... 67

6.1 The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 68

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 68
2. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ...................................................................... 69
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 69

7. Technology Accelerator Fund (P.75/2022) ............................................... 71

7.1 Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré (The Chief Minister): ......................................... 71

1. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 73
2. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 74
3. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................... 74

4. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 75
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 76
6. Deputy G.C. Guida: ...................................................................... 76
7. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 78
8. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 78
9. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 80
10. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 81
11. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ...................................................... 82
12. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 83
13. Deputy H.C. Raymond of Trinity : .................................................... 83
14. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 84
15. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................... 85
16. Deputy R.J. Ward : ..................................................................... 86
17. The Deputy of St. Martin : ............................................................. 87
18. Deputy T. Pointon of St. John : ........................................................ 88
19. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 88

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 93

[9:31]

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

The Bailiff :

1.1  Mrs. L. Hart , Greffier of the States - Swearing-in

The first item of business is an extremely important one in the life of the Assembly. It is the swearing in of the new Greffier of the States. Before I administer the oath to Mrs. Hart , who was unanimously approved by the Assembly as their next Greffier yesterday morning, I would like firstly to welcome her family, colleagues and indeed the former Greffier and Deputy Greffier, Mr. de la Haye and Mr. Harris , to the Chamber this morning. It must look quite unusual for those to be looking down at this and noting what is the same and what is different. But I am sure Members will join me in welcoming everybody. [Approbation] We are all familiar with the work of the Greffier designate. She has worked in this Assembly and before that in the Greffe in many different capacities and she has, during that period, secured the confidence and respect of Members of the Assembly. I look forward very much to working with her in her enhanced capacity and to continuing the good work that the Greffe does in support of the work of this Assembly. I congratulate her warmly on her appointment and I am sure Members will join me in doing so. [Approbation] Mrs. Hart , will you please stand? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear and promise before God that you will well and faithfully exercise the office of Greffier of the States of Jersey, that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law, and that you will uphold and maintain the laws and usages of Jersey? Congratulations, Greffier. [Approbation]

Deputy J.H. Perchard of St. Saviour :

Sir, sorry to interrupt, I know there have been a couple of changes to the Order Paper over the last few days. Would you mind just running through the order of the remaining business for Members? Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Yes, I will. As I understand it, there is next an urgent oral question to be asked by Senator Mézec of the Minister for Treasury and Resources. A period of 10 minutes will be allowed for supplemental questions on the basis that that was the same period allowed for all of the other questions during question time. Thereafter I will leave the Chair because the Thai ambassador is visiting and the Greffier will take over, and the next order of business after that is the Channel Island Lottery: Allocation of Proceeds. Thereafter Public Sector Employment Contracts, a proposition brought by Deputy Higgins, thereafter we follow strictly the Order Paper that existed when the Assembly started to sit. So that is what Members might anticipate. I will return to the Chamber as soon as my other obligations are dealt with.

QUESTIONS

2. Urgent Oral Question

2.1  Senator S.Y. Mézec of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding ..

Given the Assembly adopted the first amendment to the Government Plan 2022 to 2025, which agreed to reduce the social housing rental cap from 90 per cent of the market rate to 80 per cent from 1st January this year, why does the new Memorandum of Understanding published in R.56/2022 state that the rent policy is still to charge 90 per cent of the market rate?

Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

As my report notes, the Memorandums of Understanding were the subject of a thorough review, which required engagement with the States-owned entities themselves and other stakeholders, including the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. This process took in excess of 2 years and the outcome is that we have M.O.U.s (memorandums of understanding) that will ensure the S.O.E.s (States-owned entities) will continue to operate to modern standards of corporate governance. The Senator refers in his question to the Andium Homes M.O.U. and the policy was 90 per cent when originally drafted, and this was the version that the Andium Home board approved in principle ahead of adoption of the Government Plan 2022 - 2025. While this is an oversight in the final draft attached to my report, the clause prior to the one referred to by the Senator does have the effect of capturing the States recent amendment to 80 per cent. Under the rent policy section, the M.O.U. reads in section 1.6: "Andium Homes shall comply with such policy or policies as the States and/or any future regulator shall adopt in relation to the rents payable by Andium Homes tenants." This clause effectively future proofs the M.O.U. so that if a new rent policy is adopted by the States in the future Andium are obliged to comply with the new policy. I can assure Members that the final version the Andium board are to approve and sign will reflect the 80 per cent policy but, let me stress again, section 1.6 requires compliance with any rent policy adopted by the States Assembly from time to time.

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I am pleased to hear at least some of that. Does the Minister accept that it does look absolutely absurd that 4 months after a new rent policy which was agreed by this Assembly comes into force that a document is presented to the Assembly, which provides what will appear to at least be an inaccurate historic record of what the situation actually is and would she not agree that reissuing this report with the correct rent policy in it from the outset would have been a much better thing to do?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

It has already been amended. As I said, there was a missing part in the paragraph that the Senator is questioning and it will have to be approved by the board, and the next sitting of the board is 25th May, so a new report will be issued after that.

[9:45]

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

Does the Minister have the up-to-date figures of how much this change will affect the income and finances of Andium Homes and how much impact will it have on those tenants who pay ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Deputy , the urgent oral question was to deal with the disparity specifically between one percentage in one document and one percentage in another. It is not intended, and it would not be fair, to make it a more general exploration of rent effects on members of the public. It is just not within the ambit of the oral question, which was urgent.

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I would just like to ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources, first of all, does she recognise that this did cause alarm for some social housing tenants who saw this and there were lots of questions being asked, for example, to us how come the 80 per cent policy is no longer being effected? Does she think that if it was a different stakeholder and that, for example, a States decision had been made in a different field that, for example, affected businesses and we had made a policy that affected them one way or the other, that 3 or 4 months later this kind of error would have been made?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

No, I do not. The M.O.U.s, and there are a considerable amount of them, it is not just Andium, were published on 22nd April, that is a few days ago, and it has already been amended, as I said in answer to the previous question, and will be approved by the board on 25th May.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

May I raise the défaut on the Chief Minister please?

The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to raise the défaut? The défaut is raised.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

Supplementary. I do not think the Minister for Treasury and Resources necessarily understood my question but I will ask the first part. Does she recognise the concern and the alarm that this caused to many social housing tenants when they thought that their rents were going to be retained at 90 per cent and would she like to apologise for that error on behalf of whoever made that error?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

As I said, the M.O.U.s were only published a week ago so I do not think there can be considerable alarm and the preceding, as I have said several times, Article to the 90 per cent said, as I said in my opening remarks, that it can be debated or renewed or whatever by the States at any time. I have already said that, yes, a new report will be published after the board meeting on the 25th so that everybody will know that at the moment it stands at 80 per cent.

5. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

The Minister made reference to the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel being involved in respect of the M.O.U. ..

The Bailiff :

Sorry, this does have to be a question, Deputy . The Deputy of St. Mary :

Could the Minister please clarify as to whether the necessary Ministerial Decisions approving the M.O.U.s have yet been passed because the R. does not actually confirm that, I do not think?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

No, they have not been signed yet.

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

I would like to thank the Minister for her answer. It was really clear. Can I ask the Minister what communication plans are ahead to put forward what comes through these M.O.U.s and what the discussion has been about the question this morning?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

The M.O.U.s were established a long time ago and when I first took office as the Minister for Treasury and Resources they had not been reviewed for a very long time, hence the time it has taken to produce the recent review and they will now be reviewed, the M.O.U.s, every 3 years.

The Bailiff :

Very well, no other questions then that draws question time .. you would like a final supplementary? I apologise, Senator.

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

Sir, I ..

The Bailiff :

Sorry, did you light your ..

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I did, Sir.

The Bailiff :

I did not see you, I am afraid, Deputy Ward , but that is all right. We still have time. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I usually blame the Mace for not being seen but it is not there today.

The Bailiff :

No, there is a different reason this time. I really do not know what it is.

7. Deputy R.J. Ward :

That is what I expected. Can I ask the Minister, just for clarity then, the document will be republished with the 80 per cent on it and that is what the Andium tenants can expect to go ahead from now?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes. As I said, it will be after the board meeting, which will agree the 80 per cent and it will then be republished.

8. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

The first page of the report in its conclusion says: "The new M.O.U.s will come into effect on 1st May 2022", if you then go to the rent section for the Andium M.O.U. it says: "The rent policy at the coming into effect of this M.O.U. is as follows" and then goes on to stipulate the 90 per cent rate. So the wording in this report could not be clearer. Either the report is wrong or the Minister is wrong. They cannot both be right, so can the Minister confirm without any doubt whatsoever that the strict wording of this report is to be disregarded because it is false and that as of now she regards it as inapplicable and will be withdrawn as a matter of urgency since this strict wording of it is false?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

It is not false. As I have already said - I do not like repetition but it seems to be that I have to repeat

- it has taken 2 years to produce this report or these M.O.U.s and it will be re-evaluated, the M.O.U. and the Article within it, to say that the rents at the present time are 80 per cent.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

3. Channel Islands Lottery: Allocation of 2021 Proceeds (P.68/2022) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

That brings to an end the question time for the urgent oral question. The next item on the list of business is the Channel Islands Lottery: Allocation of 2021 Proceeds, P.68, lodged by the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture. 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) to agree, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4(5) of the Gambling (Channel Islands Lottery) (Jersey) Regulations 1975, to allocate £977,709 to the Jersey Community Foundation and the Association of Jersey Charities, divided equally between them, for onward distribution in support of the Island community; (b) to agree that the proceeds allocated to the Association of Jersey Charities should be distributed solely to registered charities, and that the allocation to the Jersey Community Foundation should be distributed on the following basis – (i) 40 per cent of the allocation to arts, culture and heritage; (ii) 40 per cent of the allocation to sports and active lifestyle; and (iii) 20 per cent of the allocation to applied science or applied research in the fields of engineering, biology, ecology, physics, chemistry or mathematics, provided that the funds are either to be used locally or for the direct benefit of Jersey, including any education from which local residents may benefit.

Senator L.J. Farnham (The Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture):

The Assistant Minister, who I am relieved to see is back in the Assembly, will act as rapporteur for this item.

3.1   Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture - rapporteur):

I am pleased to present this proposition, which will enable the Government to distribute the proceeds of the 2021 lottery to the Association of Jersey Charities and the Jersey Community Foundation. The total amount to be distributed is £977,709. Following the success of the distribution of the 2020 proceeds, this proposition mirrors the agreement for that 2020 lottery in that 50 per cent of the proceeds would be allocated to the Association of Jersey Charities for distribution to registered charities and the A.J.C.'s own work. The remaining 50 per cent will be allocated in the Jersey Community Foundation. From there it will be subdivided into the following areas: 40 per cent to the arts, culture and heritage; 40 per cent to sports and active lifestyles; and 20 per cent to science-based education and research projects. The Association of Jersey Charities has over 50 years' expertise in the charitable sector and the Jersey Community Foundation has expert panels across a range of sectors that support it in distributing the funds effectively. The amount available for distribution is lower than in recent years due to the additional production costs that were incurred in 2021. It is envisaged that the existing service level agreements will be extended to distribute the funds as set out in this proposition. The Jersey Community Foundation has awarded over £80,000 to 18 projects that will celebrate and commemorate Her Majesty's platinum jubilee. Also, a significant number of organisations have benefited from the lottery, including the Beresford Street Kitchen, Centrepoint, Every Child Our Future, and a range of arts, culture, sport and scientific organisations. There is no doubt that the Channel Islands Lottery Fund continues to have a positive impact across the community. It supports activities such as pétanque in the Island, all the way through to studying blue carbon processes as we try to understand more about the way blue carbon can be extracted from the atmosphere using our marine life. In addition, it continues to support the crucial charitable sector in Jersey and delivers a wide range of services for Islanders of all ages. I urge Members to support this proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

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

1. The Deputy of St. Mary :

First, can I congratulate the Assistant Minister in bringing this proposition somewhat earlier than his predecessors? I recall that when I first entered the States 7 or 8 years ago almost a whole year had elapsed between the lottery itself and the distribution and that was really at the expense of the charities being able to use it more timely. I very much support the proposition but I would ask the Assistant Minister if he can clarify 2 points in his summing up. The report refers to the difference in proceeds between the 2020 and 2021 lotteries. Could he please advise what were the gross sales and printing costs, as compared with the previous year? In relation to the S.L.A. (service level agreement), which I appreciate has happened in previous years in what is now an established practice, is he able, please, to confirm whether there is a maximum administration cost that they are allowed to take into account for their administration costs?

2. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I would just like to say to the Assistant Minister, I am very pleased to see the 20 per cent and the allocations for applied science or applied research in the fields mentioned, one of the reasons being it is, if you like, an industry of applied research. We have not grown as much as I think we could in the Island in order that people have opportunity. Does the Assistant Minister believe that access to these funds have enough clarity? It is, hopefully, a constructive question. Does this include courses that may be off-Island; the funding of higher education PhD courses are very specific areas of research that we cannot undertake on the Island? Eventually those skills will come back to the Island because we may need much wider research. Because research in those areas really is worldwide, interdisciplinary and international, to be quite frank. Can I just ask the Minister's opinion on that and whether he thinks that this allocation has the clarity it needs and what he could suggest would improve that?

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :

As we are approaching the end of the Assembly, could I use this opportunity in support of the proposition, thank Deputy Morel for taking hold of this and a number of other issues and dealing with them admirably? As the Deputy of St. Mary said, putting things back into a more timely fashion. I would also like to record a vote of thanks to the Assistant Minister, Deputy Raymond, and to the former Assistant Ministers, Deputy Tadier and Senator Pallett, all of whom have contributed to this work, especially in their role of championing heritage, arts, culture and sports, all of whom now are world sectors but those sectors will all now benefit from lottery proceeds. I just wanted to place that on the record and of course will be fully supporting the proposition.

4. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

As many Members know, this area of subjects has been a passion of mine for the last 4 years, given my background and I thank the Assistant Minister for bringing this, as the chair of the panel said, in a more timely place. However, I just have a couple of quick questions, if I may. It does say in the financial and manpower implications: "Subject to States approval [obviously today] the Jersey proceeds from the Channel Islands Lottery will be transferred, as stated and as soon as reasonably practicable." Is there a timeframe for that? I say that because, equally noted, which I think also the chair referenced, was the difference in proceeds between the 2020 and 2021 lotteries, which is due to additional production costs, which has had an impact. I think I would also like to echo the chair that it raises my eyebrows, and to know what that is and how does that benefit our local charities and others who are needing this money after 2 years of unprecedented times? Because the wording it says is: "The incidence of these costs does not have a regular pattern" and I understand of course it follows up: "Is dependent on the timing of the introduction of new games." But I would like to make the point very strongly that the charitable sector of this Island, like many other industries of this Island, have just gone through a very difficult period and are still adjusting and need assurance and certainty when that money is coming.

[10:00]

How can we stabilise this much needed pot of money over the next couple of years? It is not about cost and production cost, it is how much we can make sure that Islanders' contributions when they buy their tickets in every which way is going directly to the charity as urgently as possible. Also, with the changes between the new proceeds, between the unfortunate circumstances with the last time this was brought to the Assembly, has that settled and what is the feedback from those on this process?

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

While supporting the split in distribution proposed, my question is at the other end and I would ask the Assistant Minister to let States Members know how his department propose to enhance ticket sales because it is the ticket sales which produce the money. That is really a fundamental point in these difficult times where people have difficulty putting food on the table. Let us understand how those sales can be practically stimulated.

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

I would just like to put on record that the Jersey Community Foundation has recently awarded a number of Parishes some grants that we are able to use towards the platinum jubilee celebrations. I would like to record that it was really tough to get that money; it is not just given away willy-nilly, as it were. I was surprised at the amount of detail and questions that we were obliged to respond to when applying for it. I just want to say that I think that is absolutely laudable, although this money does go to the Association of Jersey Charities, Jersey Community Foundation, they have got to be absolutely clear in the governance of it and ensure that it is not just given to causes, let me say, that may divert the funds essentially. Not only did we have to answer a lot of questions about it, we have had to give guarantees as to how that money will be utilised and spent. I believe that if they felt we did not do that they could ask for some of it back, if I remember correctly. In my view, from that perspective there certainly seems to be good governance regarding the distribution, certainly from the Jersey Community Foundation and I can assure them, if anyone is listening, that St. Lawrence will be spending the money appropriately and as agreed.

7. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade :

I understand that the sale of scratch cards has increased somewhat over the years but certainly my impression that the Christmas lottery sales have somewhat waned over the past few years. Is there anything that could have been done to the structure of the Christmas lottery to improve the sales at that time?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Does any other Member wish to speak? If no other Member wishes to speak, I close the debate and I call upon Deputy Morel to reply.

8. Deputy K.F. Morel :

I thank all Members for their questions and their comments; really interesting. The Deputy of St. Mary - yes, I apologise I just need to bring up the correct document - and also Deputy Pamplin because they both asked about the increase in production costs. It was an increase in distribution and print costs in 2021 compared to 2020. Distribution costs increased by about £113,000 from £1,115,000 to £1,229,000; those are approximate amounts so as not to bore the Assembly with the decimal points. Printing costs increased from £456,000 to £570,000; that is between 2020 and 2021. In addition to that as well, in direct response to Deputy Pamplin's question about increase in production costs as well, the creation of new games is an interesting process, so this is particularly for the scratch cards. What happens is a new game is created and the lottery has to pay a company to create those games, but new games are created as the print stock of scratch cards for old games runs out and so that is a highly variable figure. Sometimes the scratch cards could be on sale for over a year and so you are not printing a new game until after that year. What happened in 2021 was that a number of new games had to be created and that caused an increase in costs as well. Yes, it is the variability there which makes it difficult and that means from one year to the next the amount can change. Deputy Ward , is there enough clarity around the scientific activities? To be honest, I would have to ask the Jersey Community Foundation. I believe there is enough clarity around the types of activities; it is applied scientific study, as opposed to theoretical scientific study. It does not necessarily have to be for people spending that money locally, as I understand it. The proposition

that we passed from Deputy Guida back in 2019 and 2020 was about the money should be for local organisations or that will directly benefit the Island. In that sense it may be possible that people could use it for studies but I will check. Please do not take my entire word on that and I will double-check for Deputy Ward . Enhancing ticket sales, and there are enhancing ticket sales of the scratch cards and there are also enhancing tickets sales of the Christmas lottery. In my view there is a need to modernise the lottery in the way that it does its business. For instance, it could go online a lot more in terms of particularly scratch cards, those can be played online, as opposed to necessarily being in just a paper version. I believe that the new Minister should take that and move forward with that because there is an opportunity here to, I believe, create greater benefit from the lottery and it would be for the new Minister to do that. I also feel that as far as the actual system is concerned there is not at the moment, for instance, a point-of-sale system, so when you buy a lottery ticket it does not automatically get registered via a computer somewhere telling you where the stock levels are and things like this. I think there could be greater efficiency built into the actual system itself for registering the tickets which have been sold and all of that. Having done this over the past 15 months that is one of the takeaways that I take from this, is that there is room for modernisation and I would urge a new Minister to pick that up and run with it. The Connétable of St. Lawrence , thank you and thank you for the comments about the stringent application criteria. It is really good to hear people who have been through the process and seen the process because, as an Assistant Minister, I distribute the funds but I do not apply for them myself, so it is good to hear that feedback. Yes, I have no doubt both the A.J.C. and the J.C.F. (Jersey Community Foundation) are diligent in the way they allocate these funds and make sure that the people or organisation asking for the funds are appropriate and have done the paperwork that is necessary. To Senator Farnham , I thank him for his kind words and I am pleased that we have brought this more quickly and it has been a real pleasure serving with Economic Development and the team, the Ministerial team and the officers, over the past 15 months and so I thank him for that. With that I call for the appel, please.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The appel is called for. I invite Members to return to their seats. In a moment the Greffier will open the voting and those joining via Teams should obviously vote within the chat in the usual way. The vote is now open and I ask Members to cast their votes.

Senator L.J. Farnham :

May I raise the défaut on Senator Gorst ? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Do Members agree that the défaut should be raised? The défaut is raised on Senator Gorst . If all Members have had an opportunity to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to then close the voting. I can announce that the proposition has been adopted.

4. Public Sector Employment Contracts (P.71/2020) - as amended (P.71/2020 Amd.) The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

The next item of Public Business is the proposition brought by Deputy Higgins entitled Public Sector Employment Contracts, P.71. Deputy Higgins, you lodged an amendment to this proposition a couple of days ago, will you be making a proposition to the Assembly to reduce a lodging period so that this amendment can be taken at this meeting?

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Yes, Ma'am. If I could just say very briefly, looking at the dates that I put here in the proposition for action because time has gone on we are getting very close to those dates. The purpose of the amendment is simply to extend the period of time that actions can be taken, which I think would be reasonable all round. I ask Members to approve the amendment being taken at this time.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is that proposition to reduce a lodging period in respect of the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition? Very well. Are Members content to take this on a standing vote? Those in favour of the proposition, please show. Those against? The proposition is carried. Deputy , therefore I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended by your amendment.

The Assistant Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) that contracts of employment for all States' employees from 1st September 2022 should explicitly prohibit the following and confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that such acts constitute acts of gross misconduct – (i) lying, obstructing, misleading or attempting to mislead a Minister, the States Assembly, any Scrutiny Panel or "Back- bench" Member of the States of Jersey about any aspect of the employee's work for the States; (ii) covering up or concealing any failure (act or omission) on the employee's part alone, or together with others, or on the part of others that they have become aware of at any time, on any matter, that could financially damage or bring the States of Jersey and/or the Government of Jersey into disrepute; and that such lying, obstructing, misleading and covering up should be punishable by termination of their employment without any compensation or compromise agreements, pension rights or bonuses depending upon the severity of the offence they have committed; (b) that an independent review of disciplinary policies and procedures should be commissioned to ensure that any disciplinary action follows the rules of natural justice; (c) that an amnesty up to 31st August 2022 should be implemented during which period employees can own up to any past lies, obstructions, misleading statements, and cover-ups (unless of a criminal nature) and/or knowledge of acts or omissions of others, with the employees concerned to face no loss of employment, grade, position, pension rights, bonuses, compensation agreements unless they commit a future act of a similar nature or fail to fully declare any past transgressions that are being addressed by this proposition; (d) that a register should be maintained of any declarations under paragraph (c) that shall record the past breaches of these provisions; and (e) to request the States Employment Board to initiate the necessary steps, including instructions for the development of any legislation that may be required, to implement paragraphs (a) to (d) above.

4.1   Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I apologise to Members if I start spluttering and coughing at various times. It is my turn for COVID, I am still suffering with it. I have sat in this Assembly for almost 14 years and I brought this proposition to the Assembly because I believe that we have developed a system of impunity within the Island's civil service over the past 2 decades. I would like Members to consider all the failures that have occurred in the States for the years in which they have been in the Assembly and the cost of those failures and ask themselves, who has been held accountable for them, both politicians and civil servants? Although politicians can be held to account at the ballot box when the election comes round, how are civil servants held to account and when have they been held to account? I think you would be hard pressed to be able to name one example; I cannot think of any. What do I mean by a system of impunity? I am referring to a situation where some mid-level and senior officers believe that they can do what they like or want without fear of being held to account for their actions or to face any sanctions whatsoever.

[10:15]

Some of them even hold their political masters with contempt and delight in thwarting those who are democratically responsible for the oversight of the public service and their actions. What is worse I also believe they are right, they can act with impunity, as the institutions and people who should be holding them to account have failed to do so and that we do not have any effective checks and balances to protect the public. We have developed a system in which some officers can lie, mislead and obstruct Ministers, Scrutiny Panels and review panels, States Members and cover up their failures and actions, do all 3 of these types of things and get away with it. Before going on to explain why I believe this situation has come about and why I believe this proposition can help to restore the balance, I reintroduced a proper accountability structure. I want to state firmly and upfront that this is not an attack on all civil servants. I hold the vast majority of the Island's civil service in the highest regard, they work very, very hard day-in and day-out for the benefit of all Islanders. I can say this, having been a civil servant myself at one point in my career and have seen their work and their work

ethic first-hand. This proposition is designed to deal with a small minority of civil servants who I believe have gone rogue and the vast majority of our civil servants have nothing to fear from this proposition and to the changes that I am proposing to make to their contracts of employment. Why do I feel that they have nothing to fear? First of all because the vast majority of our civil servants do not come into contact with Ministers, Scrutiny Panels or individual States Members in the course of their employment. Secondly, the vast majority of those that do do not lie, mislead and obstruct Ministers and Scrutiny Panels and individual Members or engage in cover-ups. Unfortunately, I could not come up with a more targeted solution to this problem and so the contractual terms will have to be written into all contracts for all civil servants. I would also say too that nor should any civil servant who may be alleged to be guilty of an act of gross misconduct fear the process that will judge their guilt or innocence. I have always thought all States workers to be treated fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and I would not expect them to be treated any differently. To avoid any red herrings that may come up later, let me just refer to paragraph (a) of the proposition and the paragraph after the (ii) which says: "That such lying, obstructing, misleading and covering up should be punishable by termination of their employment without any compensation or compromise agreements, pension rights or bonuses." Some of you may think this sounds very draconian; it is meant to be if it is to have any deterrent effect. But for those who think it might be overly draconian I would point out it also says and I quote: "Depending upon the severity of the offences they have committed." It would only be in the most extreme cases that such penalties would be, in my view, justified. Again, finally before going on to explain why the culture of impunity has arisen and give my examples of failures where no one has been held to account, I will address the amnesty clause proposed in the proposition. Some Members may question why it is included, as has indeed the S.E.B. (States Employment Board) in their comments. I have included it in the proposition as I happen to believe that there have been some cover-ups in the past which we are not fully aware of and that some of them could be ticking time bombs which could blow up in our faces in the future and end up costing the taxpayer many millions of pounds. I think it is important that we try to find out what is out there and perhaps try and address them earlier rather than sooner. I have also included it because we cannot make contractual changes retrospective. We can only hold people to account for their future actions. However, should a civil servant fail to fully declare a past action which will be recorded on a register and it subsequently comes to light that they did so, then this would be treated as if they had committed a new offence and that action could lead to them being dismissed for gross misconduct. Moving on to the culture of impunity. The culture of impunity, as I referred to, is not the fault of any one Council of Ministers, States Assembly or any specific Members. It has also not come about overnight but has happened over a number of decades in a drip-feed fashion for a number of different reasons, which when taken together have brought us to where we are today. In no order of importance, what do I think are some of the failures we have had in the past that would have led to this situation? I am going to start off with the States Assembly. I happen to think that sometimes our Standing Orders can sometimes hinder effective accountability. In my years in the States I have seen a number of examples of Government Ministers lying to the Assembly and to Islanders and when they have done so they set a bad example, not only for their officers but also give politicians the reputation that we have gained

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Excuse me, Ma'am. I am not sure whether what the Deputy has just said is in Standing Orders, although he has not named an individual Minister he has said a number of Ministers have lied in this Assembly.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I hesitated to interrupt you because I wanted to see where you were going with this but under Standing Order 104(2)(c) I hope you are not going to impute improper motives directly or by innuendo to any Member of the States, past or present.

Ma'am, if I am allowed to continue it will become self-explanatory. I am not going to name any individuals as such, okay. What I want to do is explain how our procedures hinder the proper accountability of Ministers who I believe and others have believed in the past have lied to the Assembly. I am talking about procedure, not individuals.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

If you can ensure that you are not directly inferring that any States Member themselves has lied to this Assembly in the course of the rest of your speech.

Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen :

Excuse me, Ma'am, I hate to say this but I think the Deputy has just said that. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, I can give an example in the past where a Member has lied to the Assembly and the States sanctioned that person. If Members wish me to go into that, the former Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis , lied to the States; that is an example that we are aware of and there have been others when people have challenged Ministers for lying and I want to explain why the system helps prevent proper accountability. If I may continue, Ma'am, I am not going to mention any other names.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , if I could stop you. The former Minister was in fact sanctioned for misleading the committee of inquiry, rather than this Assembly and at no point was that former States Member found guilty of having lied to this Assembly itself.  

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I might dispute that, Ma'am, because if we go back it was the Privileges and Procedures Committee, perhaps they will explain this then. They brought a proposition to the Assembly censoring the Minister for Home Affairs, not only I believe lying to the committee of inquiry but also to the States because the committee of the inquiry drew attention to the fact that he lied to the States.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think for the sake of this debate if it is to continue and you are to raise some of the concerns that you have, including within your report, it is perhaps best to move on from this particular item because I think you are in danger of falling foul of Standing Order 104(2)(c).

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Ma'am, I will go through this quickly but I am not, I am talking about a procedural thing, rather than individuals. I think it will become quite clear if you give me a little bit of leeway and let me continue and then we will carry on. One of the reasons why I am criticising our procedures is the fact that if I do name a Member in this Assembly of lying to the States, the first thing that will happen is that the Chair of the Assembly, whether it be the Bailiff , yourself or anyone else who is sitting as the Chair, will challenge me and say: "You cannot accuse a Member of lying." I cannot

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

But with respect, Deputy , that is because that is listed within Standing Orders. It is quite clearly written in Standing Orders that you are not able to do that.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

That is what I am saying, our own Standing Orders can prevent us from airing these matters. Ma'am, if I can just continue and then I am sure everyone will be able to calm down. All I am trying to say is that we have a system whereby we cannot accuse Ministers of lying, we cannot accuse them of

misleading the States. We have to say that they unintentionally misled the States, even when we believe they are lying through their teeth. What I am suggesting is we need to look at our own procedures and perhaps change them. The proposal that I have got is that instead of that happening and Members being sanctioned if they will not withdraw their comments about these people, then we should have a system whereby the matter can be immediately referred to the Commissioner for Standards so that it can be adjudicated by him. In other words, the evidence of the allegation can be put forward and he can judge whether the Minister in fact lied to the Assembly. What I am suggesting is he should report back to the Assembly, as a Scrutiny Panel would do, let us say within 2 weeks or 3 weeks or whatever and Members can then see what happened. Because at the present time if a Member believes they have been lied to they are thwarted by our Standing Orders. Basically that is all I am going to say on this particular matter in terms of Standing Orders and that particular Standing Order. What I am trying to show is some of our rules sometimes prevent us from totally airing issues that affect people and it has led to a reduction, I believe, in accountability. If I can give some other examples where I believe that our own rules are hindering accountability and that is, for example, when it comes to parliamentary privilege. We all know that all States Members have the right to speak in the Assembly unfettered and we can say things in this Assembly for which we cannot be challenged in a court of law and, by the way, we can also write things in parliamentary proceedings which cannot be challenged in a court of law. This is fundamental to democracy because the media may come across something and they are constrained by the laws of defamation and everything else from getting something out that is in the public interest. We have this privilege to enable us to speak out when we feel necessary in the public interest to reveal information. We can name people; do we name people every day? No, we do not. We only do it in the most exceptional case when we feel it is in the public interest to do so. Yet, under our rules we persistently have had rulings where people in the Chair have said: "You cannot mention that name and it will be struck from Hansard." It goes out visually on the web broadcast of the States but it is taken out of the Hansard record, which is the long-term record for people going back and see what has gone on. By doing that and restricting the ability of Members to use their privilege also means that the press cannot report on it because if they report accurately what is said and what is written in the parliamentary record, then they have qualified privilege under the law and some of these matters can be dealt with. Another example of where I feel that our Standing Orders are sometimes preventing full accountability is the inconsistency sometimes in which the rules are applied. For example, we can name civil servants if we are going to praise them but if we are criticising we cannot. We are told that we have to use the titles of civil servants, as opposed to their names and yet, as I have discovered just recently with this particular report, we are being told that if you name a particular title it identifies the person, so you have got to be even more obscure. What we are doing is watering it down so we cannot hold anyone to account. I will leave it at that particular point; that is as far as the States Assembly is concerned where I believe we are not holding people properly to account. Let us come on to Ministerial Government. We have already heard that Ministers do not employ their own staff. Under the target operating model the departments were essentially amalgamated in their mega groupings and departmental heads done away with or placed under director generals and accountability was either diluted or disappeared altogether. As Deputy Young told us yesterday, Ministers did not really control their departments and a lot of the powers have been devolved to the exceptionally well-paid and unelected director generals. I hate to say this but we do and the public are well aware of it. We also have some exceptionally weak Ministers who have delegated all their powers under the law to their officers, effectively ceding control of their departments to unelected members.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , I am afraid I am again going to have to interject because, again, you are in danger under Standing Order 104 of using offensive or insulting language about Members of the States in calling some of the Ministers weak and I would ask that you withdraw that comment.

[10:30]

Ma'am, I will not withdraw it in the sense that it is my opinion that some Ministers are weak and I am sure other Members with have their own view on them.

Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

Point of order, Ma'am, you have asked him to withdraw that comment, he has refused. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, Deputy , I do feel that this is a particularly difficult debate. You do need to ensure that your focus is on the actual proposition that you put forward, which is about public sector employment contracts. The discussion about Standing Orders and this Assembly's conduct is somewhat extra to the proposition itself. If I could perhaps ask you again if you would withdraw that comment that you have made about weak Ministers.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, Ma'am, I will withdraw it so we can move on but I must admit it is a very strongly held opinion of my own. We also have Ministers who defend the indefensible, for example, when we have failures that have occurred in their departments, their policies or their offices, rather than take responsibility for actions and learn from mistakes, they end up defending what, essentially, turns out to be indefensible. It is not surprising that voter turnout in elections is so low and that politicians are generally held in low regard or contempt. Okay, Scrutiny Panels, and I believe that Scrutiny Panels play an absolutely essential role in holding people to account. But I believe that Scrutiny Panels have become overloaded with work and because they are covering more than one department they cannot, effectively, monitor everything that is going on. In addition to that we have been given extensive briefings and it is great being a member and you get a briefing and you are told what is going on. The only problem is we end up spending so much time having briefings as well as the Scrutiny things that we end up having less time for constituency matters, conducting our own research or bringing our own propositions to the Assembly. I would add that if we look at social policy over the last 9 years most of it has come from Back-Benchers and one of my fears is that if we spend as much time on briefings and being involved in helping formulate government policy through some of the discussions that go on in Scrutiny there will be less time for bringing forward legislation, which Governments tend not to bring. Okay, moving on and moving away from the States, which may make you, Ma'am, more comfortable than other Members in the Assembly, I would like to just talk about generally the failed accountability system. We have created a system whereby members of the public who are wronged by civil servants and States departments are left without remedies. These rogue or incompetent officers keep getting away with their actions. Although the States passed a proposition to establish a Public Sector Ombudsman in February 2018, successive Councils of Ministers have not delivered on it. Funding has been approved for the office but the law itself has not been drafted; it was supposed to be in before this Parliament ended, it will not be and I do not believe that COVID alone is a good enough explanation for this. Is it political failure or obstruction? We have the States Employment Board which is responsible for all staff employed in the public sector but holds no one to account. Failure has been rewarded with compromise agreements in which many senior civil servants are being paid off with enhanced payments to go, and they all include non- disclosure clauses so that States Members and the public have no idea of the extent of their failures or the terms of their leaving; so much for accountability and transparency. We have the States Complaints Board made up of some distinguished lawyers, who I believe have done some excellent work but their reports are contested by Ministers and officers alike and then ignored. The Alwitry case is one case in point, their findings regarding the breach of contract were ultimately endorsed by the Privy Council in London, the highest court for Crown Dependencies. The only problem I have with the board is that they can only hear a limited number of cases and there is a danger, as I found in one case, where if it is very complex and time consuming then will not consider it. The Law

Officers' Department, I believe their role is incompatible with assisting wronged citizens. They are the States lawyers and will defend the officers and departments to the nth degree with unlimited taxpayers' money. Only the very rich can afford to take on the Law Officers' Department in the courts. Our legal aid system is a sick joke; the average citizen cannot afford to pursue their wrongs through the courts when lawyers are charging £400 to £500 an hour for their services and the new much-touted legal aid system would be no better. Even simple legal matters seems

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Ma'am, I do not wish to put you in a difficult position again but I am really struggling with where the Deputy is going in relation to relevance to his proposition. He is casting aspersions across the whole .. and this is a perfectly political point of view but he is in the elected Assembly casting aspersions against those who have no right of reply in this place, Ma'am, and it cannot be right.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

In fairness to the Deputy though he is protected by parliamentary privilege and he is entitled to express his opinion within this Assembly freely, providing that he does not name Members who are unable to respond. I am keeping a careful ear on proceedings, Senator. Deputy , if you wish to continue.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Thank you, Ma'am. I am coming almost to the end of it, I am going to come on to some examples in a moment. Yes, just going back to the legal aid system, I do not believe that the new legal aid system will assist. What I am trying to tell you is that we all know that people cannot afford justice in the Island. If you are paying £500 for a letter or for a short meeting with a lawyer and cases are going to go on for weeks or months, you soon find that the costs end up at being hundreds of thousands of pounds or in one case I am aware of over £1 million. What I am trying to say here is we are failing the people of this Island to hold people to account. Okay, let me just go on and look at some examples. I have said: do some officers lie, obstruct or cover up? Yes, they do. Do they damage Islanders through their actions? Yes, they do. Their actions have cost Islanders millions of pounds and untold and unjustified suffering for many Islanders. The examples I am going to go through are not just about lying, covering up, et cetera, but it is just where we have failure in the Island and no one but no one is held to account. The first example I want to give is the case of Mr. Amar..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , before you do go through these examples can I remind you that you must not refer to individuals who have no right of reply. If and where possible you should not include the names or identifiable details of those individuals. I will be stopping you if you do for those details to be taken from the Hansard record. Just before you launch into your selection of examples, just please do bear that in mind.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, thank you, Ma'am. In fact basically what is happening is you are illustrating what I am saying about our inability to hold people to account, anyway that is neither here nor there. I will comply with your wishes. Okay, I will give the case of Mr. Amar Alwitry, who is a consultant ophthalmologist, ophthalmic surgeon, who applied for a position at the General Hospital in Jersey. They accepted the contract unconditionally

The Connétable of St. Ouen :

Ma'am, can I just stop you there? The Deputy has just named an individual and has no right of reply in this Assembly.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is in the public domain.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

It is in the public domain, Connétable . The case of the individual concerned has been discussed several times by and named within this Assembly. I do not think there is a problem with his name being mentioned in this forum.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Could I raise a point of order? I think the Standing Order says that you should not mention people by name unless it is unavoidable.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): It does say that, yes.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I think it is up to Deputy Higgins to decide whether or not in the points he is making it is unavoidable to make the points he wants to without naming somebody; that is presumably the line to judge, Ma'am.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

But bear in mind that it should be avoided where necessary, particularly when that non-member cannot answer back in this forum if he is making indeed allegations about their behaviours or performance in the past. If you would like to go on, Deputy Higgins.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, Mr. Alwitry, I am mentioning this case because, yes, it is in the public domain. I might also add it has cost the States £2.4 million because of this particular failure. I just need to just give a little bit of background about the case for those who are not familiar with it and then explain the lack of accountability. Essentially, this doctor was appointed, he applied for a job at the General Hospital, he got it and in law of contract if you are offered a position and you accept it absolutely and unconditionally, as soon as you do so a binding contract comes into place. What happened in this particular case? Mr. Alwitry sold his house and started making arrangements for his wife and children to come to the Island and was 3 weeks, if I remember correctly, away from doing so when his contract - it was put forward by the Health Department - was suddenly withdrawn. They said they had withdrawn the offer, the truth of the matter is you cannot withdraw an offer once it has been accepted, as any law student will tell you. It ended up that there were discussions at the S.E.B., and I know there are past members of the S.E.B. who are here who can confirm this, and in fact they told me the information, that Mr. Alwitry at one point would have accepted £100,000 in compensation but they were advised only offering him that in 3 months. He naturally rejected that and started legal proceedings against the States. We have a situation where it has gone on, I think, for 7 years this case and it went through every single court in Jersey up to the Privy Council. On the question of breach of contract Mr. Alwitry won hands down. We then spent probably about another 2 years negotiating the quantum of damages. I know it was spun because as in all these claims he put forward, I think, a claim for £7 million, it was spun afterwards he only accepted £2.369 million in damages. The point is it cost us £2.369 million in damages and in addition to that there was hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on our own lawyers and Mr. Alwitry's lawyers and court costs before the matter was fully resolved. I think the most galling aspect of this case is how it was dismissed and spun by the S.E.B. and Government Ministers and the fact that no one has been held to account for this fiasco, not the medical

Again, Deputy , I do again hesitate to interrupt you but, again, I fail to see how this relates to your actual proposition because your proposition is about the conduct of States employees and the States Employment Board is made up of politicians. I am not entirely sure how that does relate to your proposition.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The reason, Ma'am, is the States Employment Board is made up of politicians and civil servants. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

No, the membership of the States Employment Board is purely political. They are advised by civil servants.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

In that case I stand corrected

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

But it is the politicians who make the decisions. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Okay, I will accept that. Basically what I am trying to say is anyway that no one was held to account for the withdrawal of the offer or, in other words, the breach of the contract. It was not the medical consultants who instigated the action based on their belief that he had made a complaint against one of their colleagues to the B.M.A. (British Medical Association) and thought he would be trouble and, therefore, wanted to get rid of him before he started. None of the Health Department executives who sanctioned this action of breaking the contract have been held to account and neither has anyone connected with the States Employment Board. I will leave that one. The next one I want to come on to is the Jersey child abuse scandal. This scandal cost children to be abused and it cost £29 million- plus in costs for the inquiry, legal fees and compensation and yet no one was held to account. When it first arose, all the question of abuse, former Senator Stuart Syvret was the Minister for Health and Social Services. He became aware in 2007/2008 that child abuse was taking place in States-owned and run children's homes by those employed in the service and others. He told his senior officers to urgently investigate and report back to him. Instead they obstructed him and, with the aid of others in the Jersey establishment, plotted to remove him from his position. In this regard they were successful, he was removed from office and the officers responsible went unpunished and at least one, I think, still remains in a well-paid States of Jersey job. Other officers who allegedly raped, sodomised or physically abused both boys and girls were not prosecuted, despite multiple allegations and credible evidence. A former director of Education - and I will not name the director of Education

- was nicknamed the pinball wizard for physically brutalising children by beating them and bouncing them off the walls of his office.

[10:45]

He was protected by politicians when former Deputy Trevor Pitman asked for the Minister for Education of the day to suspend him as a neutral act so that the very credible allegations, which came from both children and staff, could be investigated. He was not suspended, nor was the matter investigated. He was instead protected and allowed to continue to work for many years as director of Education before retiring on an exceptionally good pension.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

There is a point of order, Deputy Higgins, will you give way?

Deputy M.R. Higgins: Yes, Ma'am.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Ma'am, it appears to me that the detail now being given by the Deputy is capable of identifying the public servant in question and it should not be raised in this way.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Point of order, a lot of the points to which the Deputy is referring were in the public domain in the committee of inquiry, which we debated early on in this and there were people who probably could be named and their titles referred to if the Deputy was simply to read from a document of the committee of inquiry where they gave evidence.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think, the Deputy of St. Ouen , Deputy Tadier is quite correct, these are details that have been discussed in this Assembly already in the same situation as Dr. Alwitry. It is a question about whether we would be benefiting in not using the titles or the names because it is already very much in the public domain. Deputy Higgins, while there is a pause in the proceedings I wonder if you would be so kind as to allow me, in the public gallery, accompanied by the Bailiff , His Excellency the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Thailand to the Court of St. James is present in the Assembly and I wonder if Members could welcome him in the customary manner. [Approbation] With that, Deputy Higgins, if you wish to continue.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Just going back anyway to the consequences of the Care Inquiry and the cost. What happened here is no one, and I repeat no one, where a few of the abusers were ever held to account, no one within the public service was held to account for their actions. No one who was supposedly supervising children's homes was held to account. We have a situation where the careers of different people were ruined; former Senator Stuart Syvret removed from office, former chief of the States of Jersey Police, Graham Powell, was suspended from office. Why? Basically it was an act of political revenge for 2 reasons; one because he did not constrain the former chief investigating officer of Operation Rectangle, Lenny Harper, in the view of some of the politicians and, secondly, because he would not take part in the coup attempt to remove former Senator Syvret. People may say, what coup attempt? The former chief of police documented, as did another officer who attended a similar meeting at the same time, where the chief executive and senior officers were plotting to remove Senator Syvret from his office as Minister for Health and Social Services. He will not take part in it. He has excused himself from the meeting, went back to the police station and recorded a contemporaneous file note. When his other officer came back from the meeting they attended with the same things on the agenda, he instructed them to also make a contemporaneous file note. These are not just outlandish allegations, this is a case where civil servants were plotting against a Minister and they succeeded because the States went along with it and the former Senator was removed from his position of Minister for Health and Social Services. I might add that the former chief of police eventually, although he was pilloried in this Assembly and criticised by all and sundry unfairly and was never given a proper chance of reply, ended up after the Care Inquiry retiring. Moving on then, just to give you another example, States Members were often placed in rather awkward positions in how we deal with particular matters. I once received what I consider one of the best written and detailed reports I have ever read from an anonymous source. It was associated with one of the Island's most important independent non-governmental bodies. The allegations detailed a number of governance matters, which included comments made about failures of the body's own internal audit body and its former chief executive, who had just been nominated to sit in another independent body, whose membership was to be nominated by the States. The allegations were very concerning

and I felt they had to be investigated, as was the question of the suitability of the nominee to sit on another independent body, however, it was an anonymous report. The dilemma I faced was I could challenge that person's appointment to this other independent body but doing so on the basis of an anonymous report I just could not do. What I sought was that the matter should be investigated and I wanted the matter to be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I spoke with the Chief Minister on this, who I might add was totally supportive and he recommended that I go and see a senior officer to discuss the matter to see how it could be resolved. In the end I said that I would not challenge the person when their appointment came up and I might add they were part of a block of appointments; I could have challenged them all or I could have challenged the individual. I felt with an anonymous report it was not the thing to do. What I wanted was the matter to be reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, they could look at the allegations made against the chief executive, against the audit body, et cetera and if the person was criticised in that report then they would not take up their position on this other body. In fact the person indicated that if they were challenged in the States they would not take up the position. Anyway, to cut a long story short, what happened was the Comptroller and Auditor General did not want to investigate this matter. I was not told this, neither was the Chief Minister. Later when I was asking what had happened I found out that the senior officer concerned decided himself to refer it back to the Audit Committee of the same body that was criticised in the anonymous report. To the best of my knowledge, I do not know what they came up with, but I do not believe that they criticised their former colleagues or themselves and, as it happened, the person did not take up the position. But I think it is totally unsatisfactory when we have concerns like this that senior officers are dedicated a task to do, go away, if they find it is impossible but do not come back and explain to either the Chief Minister or myself what has gone on. I do not know if that was due to a mistake, incompetence or instruction or cover up or anything. All I know is that this person is still in place and will be making decisions like this and do I have confidence in those decisions? When you have something like this that happens you do wonder. Okay, let me just move on to another example and this one, again, is well rehearsed in the States

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Deputy , will you give way for a point of order? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, Ma'am.

Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Ma'am, I am genuinely trying to be helpful in raising this point of order. The proposition that the Deputy has brought is very specific in what it is asking this Assembly to agree and the Deputy is going through lots of examples, which are perfectly interesting to listen to but, in my mind, I am not understanding what case he is making for what impact what he is proposing would have in those examples or any future ones which are similar. I think he is meant to address the proposition in his speech and he would be helping the Assembly for us to get to grips with this proposition if he was being much more direct in his speech, rather than talking about examples and not addressing how the proposition itself would impact on those or future similar ones.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Thank you, Senator, for putting the point succinctly, what I had been trying to do in my interjections a couple of times throughout the speech. Deputy , the speech you make in support of your proposition really needs to do just that. I do agree with the Senator that at the moment I am struggling to see the relevance. I can see that these are allegations that you have about specific incidents but how they relate to what you are proposing the Assembly should endorse is difficult to see. If I could ask for your speech to be more in line with your proposition and to support your proposition. The allegations that you have made are listed within the reissued version of the report that accompanied this proposition, so I am not entirely certain it is necessary to rehearse each and every one of them, unless they have a specific reference to your proposition.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I think, Ma'am, I will accept that. They are in the report and what I have tried to do is to illustrate specific cases where we have failed and no one, and I repeat no one, is ever held to account. In fact if I may, I just might quickly just mention them in headings and just explain again the fact that in each incidence where no one was held to account and then I will move on directly to the thing. My next one was to do with the health service and if you remember we had the fiasco when some in the health service were given unauthorised pay awards by the head of that body and they were advised not to tell their colleagues. It ended up costing taxpayers £900,000 and yet no one was held to account for this. We have had examples where in Children's Service people have defamed members of the public and made statements about them, which were false and although complaints have been made against them, they have never been properly investigated. In fact, what investigations were a travesty. So the member of the public who was defamed has no rights and certainly they were not in a position to sue because defamation cases, as people know, are probably the most expensive type of case to bring against any individual. So we have people who can be defamed by officers but are never held to account. We have cases where officers have broken the Data Protection Law and the Data Protection Commissioner has highlighted that they have broken the law and yet no action is taken against the officers. We have senior officers who automatically by default defend their junior officers and in some instances have almost tried to cover up for it by trying to cite that .. for example, when people took tape recordings of conversations, which included what the officers were doing, being told you could be prosecuted under the Data Protection Law for what you did recording it. That is the not the case. I have already discussed it with a former information commissioner and people are entitled to take tape recordings, secret tape recordings, of meetings they have with officers, whether they be social workers or anybody else, providing they do not just put them on the web, but they can use them as a record of meetings. Very often in cases dealing with the States, it is vital they do so. Okay, I have talked about the Children's Service. I believe there are routine cover-ups in the Children's Service and I would ask Members to look at the report and see what I have written. The Planning and Environment Department is another one. This department is just unbelievable in the way that it has acted. I have been helping someone .. sorry, there are 2 cases here. The law is being applied in all sorts of ways, officers promising that they are going to take enforcement action because of things that have happened and then not done so, officers telling me as a Member and members of the public that a file has been referred to the Attorney General for action, only to find out from the Attorney General himself just over a month later that the file was pulled back from the department and no action was ever taken. So we have been, I believe, certainly in this department, not served well by our civil servants and yet how are they held accountable? The one case that I have been dealing with for over 12 years was a man who was taken to court for a breach of an enforcement notice, which required him to remove plastic windows from the rear of a property. He was convicted in the Magistrate's Court and given a fine and a criminal record and the whole process from start to finish was a travesty of justice. It did not show the States of Jersey or the legal justice system very well. In fact, it showed it at its worst. Following this trial, this man - by the way, the trial took place in 2010 - was advised by the magistrate to take his argument up politically. He did. He spoke to the Chief Minister of the day, in fact, and the Chief Minister asked his chief executive to investigate the matter. The chief executive goes to the department and is told that the man .. well, in fact, he made various false and unsubstantiated, defamatory allegations against the complainant. This stopped the investigation in its tracks. Why? Because the chief executive chose to listen to his officer, his senior officer, instead of a man who had just been convicted in the Magistrate's Court. Now, the complainant appealed his conviction in the Royal Court 3 years out of time and his conviction was quashed but he suffered unnecessary financial loss, mental trauma and family stress, which cannot be completely undone. It also led to the independent Norfolk Police investigation into the

department, which cost £50,000 looking into allegations of the perversion of the course of justice, perjury and misconduct of public office.

[11:00]

This investigation was completed in December 2021 and after almost 4 years no written report has been made to the S.E.B. or to the public. Now, we have been told, however, that there will be no criminal prosecutions of members of the department, primarily because the department is found not to be fit for purpose, deficient in policies and procedures, with the result that individual officers were applying the law differently, unchecked and as they saw fit. A number of officers have already left the department and one of those who deliberately lied to the court and should, in my opinion, have been tried with perjury, seems to have escaped on a technicality, which is highly debatable and should really be tested in court. The police officers, however, were very clear in their verbal report that one of the planning officers deliberately lied to the court. Now, whether it was technically perjury or not is irrelevant, as I do not believe there are any circumstances whatsoever where an officer should deliberately lie to the court under oath, not least in a criminal court where the accused will face substantial criminal sanctions.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Deputy , there is a further point of order from Senator Mézec . Will you give way? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes.

Senator S.Y. Mézec :

It is a point of order so he does not necessarily need to give way to it and I am afraid that it is the same point of order I raised before. I am trying in my head to work out whether I ought to vote in favour of his proposition or not and he is raising examples now that very clearly are irrelevant because he is talking about perjury. That really is not anything to do with what is in his proposition, which is about employment contracts, and he is not helping the Assembly understand what he is trying to propose and he really does need to keep it more relevant so that we can have a constructive debate.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Indeed, Deputy , as has been said before, it would be incredibly helpful if you were to aid the Assembly by highlighting exactly what actions you would expect to be taken in relation to the proposals that you have put within your proposition and highlight how this would be practically applied, and to keep the examples that you are giving purely to support the specifics of your proposition because we have gone quite a way off at a tangent at times. I appreciate that you are covered by parliamentary privilege, so you are able to express your opinions in this Assembly freely and that is your democratic right, but it is making it very difficult for the Assembly to determine whether or not they should indeed support your proposition because your speech is not directly connected with the proposition that you have put forward.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Thank you, Ma'am, and in fact everybody will be pleased that I am finishing the examples in a moment, and I will. This particular case, though, is highly relevant to the proposition. If officers do lie to the court or to their Ministers and others who are supporting the department in actions that are brought against them, then it is highly relevant and you question what actions have been taken against these people. Now, this officer has been in service for a long time and given evidence in other cases. How can we be sure that the other evidence is not tainted? Anyway, I shall leave it at this, but there is one other case I have got. There are 8 examples in the report and I would ask Members to read them, but I just want to give 2 other examples too and then I shall come to the end of this. I talked about a culture of impunity and about us not really defending individuals. The system seems to act

against individuals. There are 2 other Deputies and a Senator in this Assembly who have helped a young woman in a harassment and stalking case and we have had lots of discussions with the States of Jersey Police, and we wanted to make sure the case was properly investigated and that all evidence was presented to the prosecuting authorities so they could make a decision on it. Without going into all the details, we were given assurances on multiple occasions that all the information was given to the Law Officers' Department so that could take place. Nothing was left out, all the things that we raised concerns about were put forward, and yet one of the Deputies in this Assembly wrote to the Attorney General and had it confirmed that not all the information was handed over. Therefore, we have this problem about we are being assured, for example, by the police that everything is done but then we find out it is not. What service is it doing for the Island? There are other cases and in fact in the case that involved the Planning Department, one thing that I found particularly egregious is the fact that while this case was being investigated by Norfolk Police, the Master of the Royal Court was trying to strike out the civil part of the action because it was taking too long. The Solicitor General was going to take part in those discussions to terminate the orders of justice. Now, when I checked .. and this is highly relevant because when I heard this I was absolutely aghast. I thought we have had a person who has suffered an injustice, it is being investigated criminally and yet in the meantime the courts are trying to strike the civil action out. When I checked I found out that the then Solicitor General was not acting on the authority of the States Employment Board, which was defending the action. When I spoke to the chairman and the vice-chairman, they had not discussed it. They did not know that there were discussions about striking out the civil action. As a result of that intervention and finding out they did not, it did not go ahead. What I am just trying to say is we have people acting on behalf of bodies and the bodies do not necessarily know what is being done in their name. I will leave that one at that particular point. The only other thing I would say is that there are many people, including the Senator who has brought a point of order, and I know there are other Assistant Ministers, who have got other examples of where civil servants have either obstructed them or lied to them or who maybe have attempted to cover up. We hear these things in private, we are told. I just hope they will be honest and come forward in the Assembly and give the examples. So, going back to the actual proposition itself, I happen to believe that we do have this problem with some - and I stress that again - rogue elements and that we need to bring it under control. How can we do that? Well, we can do it by changing their contracts of employment and making it quite specific that they cannot lie to a Minister or to a Scrutiny Panel or to individual Members in the course of their employment, that they should not obstruct, mislead or cover up or hide cover-ups. Now, there is nothing in their contracts at the moment that prevents them doing that. In fact, believe it or not, the States Employment Board when they speak no doubt will say: "We have got codes of practice. They have to be honest" and everything else. There is no requirement for them to tell the truth. So I am saying that our codes of practice are defective, that we do not have effective checks and balances and, therefore, I believe that we should change the contract so it is quite an explicit statement in their contract that these things are totally unacceptable, will not be tolerated anymore. If they do then they will be guilty of gross misconduct and should, after investigation, they be found to be then they could, in the most extreme of cases, lose various privileges in terms of bonuses, let us say, or compromise agreements. So I think I will leave it at that. I think I have demonstrated, with all the interruptions and the fact that .. and explaining how our procedures do not help, how our accountability system in terms of an ombudsman does not help. We are not helping the people we are supposed to be representing in this Island and I do believe that if we adopt this proposition .. and I just ask every States Member: do you think it is right that civil servants should lie to you or to a Minister? Do you think that they should obstruct Ministers? Do you think they should mislead or they should cover up? If you do, do not vote for this because we need to have something explicit in writing and the most direct way of doing that is putting it in the contracts of employment of our civil servants. The vast majority it will have no effect on but those individuals who are rogue it will affect quite directly.

I shall allow other Members now to continue on this. I put forward this proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

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

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John :

When I first read this proposal I had some sympathy with the Deputy . However, I do not believe that the proposal is necessary or that this lengthy speech has helped the case. I have spoken to many employees in the year that I have been in this Assembly and I have to say that I am aware of the progress that is being made, has been made and continues to be made, particularly with the health service staffing issues. Perhaps what is needed is more training. I have expertise in employment law. I have sat both sides of the desk. I have represented people as a young trade union representative and I have taken cases as a manger and heard appeals as a director. I am very proud of my record of never having to have an appeal turned over. We need to make sure that people are trained, both employees and Members of this Assembly. They need to be aware. The comments from S.E.B. I think are quite clear: we have got everything and more that we need to manage our staff and we have got some amazing staff. I think that this proposal is a negative thing and that what we have got to do is utilise the tools that we have already been given. There are examples where we have not utilised the tools, and Ministers are aware of that, but we have to do that and we have to do better. It may be not the Ministers' fault for not utilising the tools; it may be about awareness. We really have to start to give people the training that they need, the awareness that they need. We come from a wide range of backgrounds and we may not be aware of the employment law, but we have got, as S.E.B. says, plenty of tools to use where we can deal with the scenarios that the Deputy has put forward. We do not need more. We just need to use what we have got, that is the contracts, the code of conduct and the standards in public service. I will not be supporting the proposition but I would ask S.E.B. to seriously consider an amnesty period. I think that would be a useful thing to do. I think that could help us and I would ask them to take that away and seriously consider that, but unfortunately I will not be supporting this proposition.

2. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré:

There are many times that I often listen very carefully to what Deputy Higgins says and at times agree with him, and obviously this is not one of those occasions. In fact, I am very glad to follow the Connétable of St. John , which has also shortened my speech even more, so I am going to try and keep it fairly brief. As he has said, and as we have said in our comments, we believe that all the issues have been dealt with by the States Employment Board, particularly during the whole range of procedures and changes that we put through as part of that cultural change that we have been dealing with the organisation. That does include new policy frameworks that do impact on public sector duties to conduct themselves to a high standard, including following natural justice, the policies of best practice and follow the requirements of the law. The proposition does not really add anything to what we have done. Agreeing to the proposition will effectively mean that the States Assembly has little or no faith in the good conduct of the public service and I think we need to think what message that sends. I understand the comments that Deputy Higgins has said but what message that sends to the 7,000 or so employees that we have. I am not clear at the moment on the legal position of the Assembly and the Parliament essentially changing the individual contracts of 7,000 staff, which is effectively what is being sought. I will make the next comment, the comment I was going to make very shortly. The term "punishable by termination of their employment without any compensation or compromise agreements, pension rights or bonuses depending upon the severity of the offence they have committed" does rather seem to predetermine an outcome, which in our view is not natural justice. All allegations that are made must be investigated. There is no question on that, but there must be evidence and the level of proof sits at the balance of probability, depending if it is criminal activity that is being alleged. That is a high bar in terms of prosecution evidence as opposed to other areas, and I am definitely not a lawyer on this. The sanction or punishment has got to be proportionate

to any degree of misdemeanour and mitigation put forward, and that does already exist. As far as I am concerned, criminal activity will never be covered up.

[11:15]

Indeed, on the very rare occasions when there is a criminal investigation the S.E.B. allows that to conclude before taking any actions. We do not interfere or confuse that investigation. Just to put things into perspective, in 2021 there were 63 disciplinary case investigations out of over 7,000 employees. That is less than 1 per cent of the entire public service and of those 5 resulted in dismissals. In terms of the amnesty, we are not entirely sure of the mechanism and whether that would actually work in terms of what one is trying to achieve, but we will listen to the debate on that. For all sorts of reasons in terms of this proposition, within the proposition, it does not work. The idea of a register, you then run into issues around data protection and requirements. That is not covered by the proposition and potentially, by voting for this proposition, certainly the advice I have got, we wonder if it will place us into issues of G.D.P.R. (General Data Protection Regulation) and breach of data protection. I will make one other remark that in Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law it specifically states: "A person who intentionally and without reasonable excuse engages in conduct (including the use of words) that the person knows or suspects will substantially interfere with the carrying out of any function of the States, or any committee or a panel established under Standing Orders, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and to a fine." In fact, depending on the severity and the circumstances and without going into the details of this - I am trying to keep my words short - it would seem to me that there is a legal degree of protection there already at a law level rather than interfering with the contracts of 7,000 people on the basis that that is what we already require them to do. On that note, I will very clearly not be supporting any part of the proposition. I really do urge Members to vote against all parts of this proposition.

3. Senator I.J. Gorst :

I was hoping the Greffier had not left my name on the paperwork, but she obviously had. I do just want to start by saying, Sir, while you were doing other important business I think I would like to pay tribute to the Greffier who just handled a very difficult opening speech very well indeed. [Approbation] I would not wish to have been in her seat. I think that the Constable of St. John is absolutely right when he reminds us that the States Employment Board have a number of tools at their disposal already to deal with some of the issues that the Deputy has referred to. I do not think that his proposition will deal with the issues that he has raised. I refer the Deputy to the work of the Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) which gloried in having a membership of political opposites and yet recognised in that work that there is work that needs to be done around the constitution of the States Employment Board and the political framework that the States Employment Board sits in and the accountability of the States Employment Board to this Assembly. I think that the issues that the Deputy is trying to refer to .. it is always difficult because I think the Deputy comes to this Assembly sometimes with a kernel of truth and a kernel of a problem that should be addressed and then he cloaks it in all sorts of conspiracy theories. He accuses those either Members of this Assembly or members outside of this Assembly of all sorts of misdemeanours where they have no right to reply and that is completely inappropriate. I cannot support this proposition today. I do think that the incoming Government will need to take notice of that work that I have just referred to and think about how we can enhance the role of the States Employment Board. Could we remind ourselves that it was always a creature that was trying to stretch between the committee system and the Ministerial system? It always had almost an impossible job to do. It has largely done it well but there are occasions when in hindsight, and I only say this with hindsight because I sat on that body, that maybe there is a different formation that would give greater confidence to this Assembly and to the public at large. The reason I worry about debates like this is because officials do listen to the machinations of this Assembly and they will be taking personally the things that Deputy Higgins has accused them of. To listen to his speech you

would believe that corruption, a disassociation with the truth, was rife across the public service and in this Assembly, but my experience is it could not be further from the truth. People of great intellect, of great skill, of great experience put themselves forward for a different type of public service from the one in this Assembly put ourselves forward for but they have the same ethos at heart in seeking a job in the States of Jersey or the Government of Jersey. Whether that be nurses, whether that be doctors or teachers, whether that be care workers, whether that be social workers, the system in which we invite them to ply their trades is not always fit for purpose. There are occasions when the system feels overwhelming to individuals and they are not able to perform in the way that they would like to but I pay tribute to those officials who I have worked with over the years and I have been fortunate to work with during this particular term of office. I joked with the Senator to my right - that is geographically not politically - that whenever a Minister stands up in this Assembly and achieves something it is the team behind them that is the achieving team not the individual Minister or Assistant Minister that might be on their feet. It is a well-known management theory that the most successful people in the world are surrounded by people who are more skilled, have more intellectual power and have more experience than the leader of the team. I leave it to others to say whether I am successful or not but in my case it is certainly true that I am surrounded by individuals of that calibre. So if we think about the kernel of the issue that the Deputy wishes to address, it does need to be addressed, improved accountability to the Assembly and to the public through some of our structures, but this is not the way to do it. I do wholeheartedly disassociate myself from the derogatory comments that the Deputy made about our officials and the conspiracy theories that he espoused. [Approbation]

4. Senator K.L. Moore :

I shall not keep Members. I think Senator Gorst said it very succinctly in the wrapping up of his speech, which was, I thought, excellent. However, I would like to ask the Deputy a question, if I may, because during this term I have become very familiar with Article 6 of the code of conduct for States Members, which is the article that identifies that public comments regarding a States employee or officer should not be made. That article does outline very clearly the process that lies behind any concerns that a States Member has about a particular employee or officer. I would like to ask the Deputy whether he has used that Article and made the complaints that the Article asks Members to do if they do have any concerns. In saying that, the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel have also conducted a review of people and culture and made a number of recommendations during this term and we found that it was a very important area, of course, and one where there are always improvements to be made. I think previous speakers have outlined some of them. The code of conduct for civil servants is still under way and that has taken a considerable amount of time and we do look forward to that being completed. Just last week in our public hearing with members of the Government we impressed upon them the need to communicate clearly with staff and to encourage use of the improved whistle-blowing process that has been put in place. But I think for Members of the Assembly perhaps one of the greatest disappointments of this term has been the failure to bring to the Assembly the new ombudsperson that was directed by a previous Assembly. I think that role would help considerably to offer the finality for those who do become caught up in a process and have frustrations. I really urge the next Assembly to complete that much-needed work, which hopefully will bring the resolution that is needed to some of the people with genuine concerns that I know Deputy Higgins has dealt with, with great compassion and care and concern, but we must ensure that we use the proper processes that we have available and also look to enhance those that are yet to come.

5. Senator T.A. Vallois:

I stand to speak because over my time as a States Member I have had a number of issues I have dealt with, whether they are constituency cases or members of staff that do not know which way to turn when it comes to things like bullying and harassment or issues of potential dishonesty and other

things that are in the public sector. Historically, the States Employment Board I do not believe has been given the sufficient consideration around the governance procedures and the way that it should work, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the current group director for People Services. The reason why I do that is because if Deputy Higgins took time to read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the States Employment Board, took time to read the report of the Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee and Public Accounts Committee reports as well, which refer to issues around governance of the States Employment Board, there are already things within the report of the Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee that are out of date because that group director has put in place a people strategy, has updated the values that we expect of our staff, which are much more comprehensive and go further than the Nolan principles that we see all too readily in other jurisdictions. That includes the requirement to be honest and the requirement for the right ethics and all the values I think we all share. One of the recommendations we make in our subcommittee report is that that exact value system should be reflected in States Members own code of conduct. I do not know whether anyone has taken the time to read that code of conduct but it is severely out of date and it really does need to be updated, but it should be the same shared values as we expect of our public sector. I stand because I do understand the frustration that Deputy Higgins is trying to put across but, like I stated, I have had many cases where I have had to demand my way through to speak to the States Employment Board. Some areas come out in the public domain, the HR Lounge report; some of the cases that were within that were things that I had to deal with directly.

[11:30]

That is why I refer to the governance of the States Employment Board. I think there is a great deal of frustration by the public, and Senator Moore quite rightly referred to the fact that we missed an opportunity in bringing in the Public Service Ombudsman and I hope it is on the top of the priority list for the next Government to make sure that the way that administration works within the public sector there is a route for people to be able to feel like they are listened to and heard and their issues are taken into account, whether that is lying or not. I cannot bring myself to support this proposition and I think it is wrong for us to expect people to apply for a job with the public service on the basis of mistrust. [Approbation] The Constable of St. John referred to about the training and about the culture that we need to change, the expectations that we have. I made the point to Deputy Guida yesterday about the power dynamics. We are here as public representatives and if there is a political will to do something and there is an underlying issue, no one person can deal with that directly, especially as a politician. We do heavily rely on our officers and rightly so because they have experience and knowledge and that is why they are employed to do those jobs. But we want to be able to make sure that the States Employment Board can function so that accountability is in the right place and it is identified that any cases that may come forward are upheld in the spirit of the law as per what the Chief Minister referred to. I am unable to support this proposition because I do not think it is the right solution for the issues I think that the Deputy is frustrated with. I have experienced concerns and I have raised them with the direct lines of management. Senator Moore referred to what you have to do if there is an issue or you are speaking about particular public sector staff in a particular way or in the public domain, but if there are any other cases or issues then there is a certain way to approach that. The frustration comes when nobody does anything about it or there is no response or there is no .. and I think the other issue that we have to take into account as well is how well our States Employment Board handles H.R. (human resources) cases. If we look at the number of tribunals and things that we have seen, we could do much, much better in this area and I think there is plenty of room for improvement. I think we have made great strides and, as I referred to the group director of People Services, the changes to the codes of practice. There has been a culture programme. I am not sure whether it has had the impact that we would all wish for it to have but, like I say, I think there are plenty of recommendations. There are plenty of pieces of work that are going on and we referred to in the debate on my proposition yesterday about a supervisory committee

and the fact that it should not just be a nodding dog or a boys club or whatever it was referred to as and there should be sufficient challenge in that. I expect the same of the States Employment Board. There should be sufficient challenge at the States Employment Board to make sure that we have got the right policies, that we are making sure that we are following through with notices served on the States Employment Board. They are a legal entity within their own right and, like I say, there is always room for improvement. There is a lot of improvement that is needed here, I believe, specifically with regard to accountability. I hope the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law will finally be resolved next term. So, as a top priority, I would suggest the Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law and the Public Services Ombudsman, because I think that will go a sufficient way to try to deal with some of the concerns that Deputy Higgins has raised.

6. Deputy M. Tadier :

I will not comment on the merits or otherwise of the Deputy Higgins' argument and the way he presented. I think it is important to remember the Deputy is a long-standing Member of this Assembly and he has no doubt over the time built up a long list of casework and frustrations with the system. I feel very much that this proposition is born out of frustration but also a desire to see what we all want to see; an accountable civil service. What I would say is that I do not accept the principle that just because what this is trying to do is quite stark - and I will speak to that in a moment - in any way impugns the general integrity. I am talking about the proposition here rather than the content of the Deputy 's speech. In the same way as when we pass laws on anything to do with murder or domestic violence, we are not saying that the whole of society is full of murderers or domestic abusers. We are saying that in those cases where these things happen we need sanctions and we need consequences to people's actions. So I am very much looking at this, first of all, in a spirit of seeing what I can and what I want to support, because I think I agree very much with the thrust of what Deputy Higgins has done. I think Deputy Higgins and I were very much formed in the same fire in the sense that we both came to politics in the aftermath of the revelations in 2007 of historic child abuse and we followed that process through and followed the committee of inquiry very closely and we listened to some very traumatic stories of individual experiences. It is again alarming today to be in the same situation where you hear stories about a child being kept at La Moye Prison or Greenfields not being up to scratch and being told that they failed an inspection, especially when we have just started this particular term by putting children first and being told that this will not happen again. The reason I think those arguments are relevant is that the whole trust in the system only needs one or 2 bad eggs in order for the whole thing to be discredited. When I read through this, and I read in particular through parts (a) (i) and (ii) and I hear about behaviour like "lying, obstructing, misleading and attempting to mislead a Minister" or any of us here, of course those are things that should not have any place in a modern or indeed in any civil service that holds itself to be accountable and democratic in upholding standards of natural justice. We do not want to see those things. Deputy Higgins does not want to see them and nor do I, and I do not think any of us wants to see them. So then the question arises, I suppose, of what happens in those situations. Should it automatically constitute gross misconduct? Of course, there is a second part to (a) which is about covering up or concealing failure, et cetera. So my inclination very much in reading part (a) is, yes, I want to support that. Does it mean that I do not have certain alarm bells that go off in terms of how that might be used? We have to also think about a scenario whereby, in the very same scenario whereby politicians in the past that I think Deputy Higgins has accused and I sympathise with .. he is saying that there was a political conspiracy to get rid of a Minister and to get rid of the former deputy chief of police. I think there is some evidence of that. Could something like that happen from what we are passing today inadvertently? Of course if somebody has lied, has been proven to lie or to obstruct or to mislead a Minister or any of us, that should have very serious consequences and I do not have a problem that that is gross misconduct, but presumably that has to be proven and there would have to be a process and an appeal mechanism to go through. I guess when it goes into misleading a Minister or attempting to mislead a Minister that is where we start to get into a grey area. I am thinking about

a scenario whereby a Minister - and it could be a Chief Minister and it could be a particular type of Chief Minister who has consolidated a lot of power with himself or herself - takes a dislike to a particular officer and says: "I think you have misled me there" and the officer of course says: "No, I did not mislead you. It turned out that the information I gave you might have been not correct but it was the best information I had at the time." So I think the whole area of good faith needs to be put in there. I think lying is black and white. Lying is often misused. People say: "So-and-so lied to me" when in fact they mean that they did not tell you something that was factually correct. Lying, as my mother told me, is to speak against your mind or to speak against your will or, in more prosaic terms, to say something that you know to be false. That is how I have always understood what lying is and if people are acting in good faith and people do make mistakes, I think that has to be taken into account. So I do not have a problem with most of the definitions in part (a). Part (b) I think is also okay. I do not really have a problem with part (b). I think that an independent review of disciplinary policies and procedures should be commissioned to ensure that any disciplinary action follows the rule of natural justice. I think that is okay. I think that hangs together with part (a) really. I also think that part (c) about the amnesty is quite a novel one. I think indeed that is something we could have done directly in 2008 in the wake of the inquiry report. We could have had that period of saying: "Okay, if anybody knows anything in the system that is incorrect and indeed if you have done something on this list that you would like to own up to now then please tell us and there will not be consequences." But even that, I guess, does have some issues because where is the line? What is the area of gravity that you can own up to something without having any consequences at all, especially if you think that you are only owning up to something because it is about to be discovered a few months down the line and straightaway you get off scot-free? I will let others speak to that who might be more critical. What I would say at this point is I have seen people in the civil service .. and I am talking about in the recent past. I cannot comment on what the latest thinking and feeling and morale is in the civil service, and it is a wide scope of departments, of course, but I know that when I was still an Assistant Minister I did have very senior officers confide in me often and I knew that they were people with the utmost integrity and dedication to the civil service who could have also worked easily, and maybe had also worked, in the private sector. They said: "I am not sure how much longer I can go on with this with the pressure that is coming from the type of culture we have got." I have not met the new chief executive yet but I am hoping that there is - and it needs to be a constant review - going to be culture change that is going on under her leadership and one of openness where people feel that they can speak out, because we do not want good civil servants and good officers feeling that they cannot do their job because there are restrictions from somewhere up above them. I suppose the last point - it might be a slightly strange thing to say but I think I feel some of the frustration as well with Deputy Higgins - is that we get so often casework that comes to us and he and I will have had people coming up who do believe that there is corruption in the system, they do tell us that. We have been dealing with a particular department - I will not mention it, there could be more than one - and certainly from day one I have had people saying to me, coming to my surgeries every week where it gets to a point where you have taken it so far and you cannot do anything; "This officer here has lied to me. This is clearly not correct" and they just hit a brick wall with where they can go. I will not mention the department but you get that point. In this I am reminded of something that is called the serenity prayer. I think it is used often in A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous) circles about having the ability to accept things, so you need to know the difference between the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can and the wisdom to know the difference. I think that is something that we all need to bear in mind when these issues come to us. I think we do need something of the judgment of Solomon in all of this but when it comes to the spirit of what the Deputy is trying to do, I am very much minded to want to support him and support as much of this proposition as I can. I do think that detail is important and that we do not want to see any unintended consequences, and that process is also really important if we are going to make strong allegations against people who may have done things wrong in our civil service that could constitute gross misconduct.

[11:45]

I would want to know a little bit more about what the process for natural justice is and I am sure the Deputy can help me in the summing up.

7. The Connétable of St. Ouen :

I will keep my comments brief. Many in this Assembly will appreciate that acting with integrity and honesty is an implied term within any employment contract. In my view, we do not need an explicit insertion into our employment contracts. One has to think of what impression this creates with any prospective new employee. The employer-employee relationship is, in my view, built on trust and wording in the way that the Deputy suggests erodes this and gets the employer-employee relationship off on the wrong foot. As many will know, recruiting good staff at the moment is difficult enough as it is and this, in my view, will not help. I have to say in all my time as an employer in private industry I have never seen a contract that explicitly lists the offences the employer thinks his prospective employees will commit listed in this way. It would put us completely out of step with the rest of the employment market in the Island and indeed elsewhere. Most of us will have at some stage signed contracts of employment. Imagine how you would feel if your own contract was worded in this way, and I think that is an important point to think about. As I said, it starts a relationship off on the wrong foot, to say the least, and suggests that we almost expect our staff to commit these offences. I would contend that a requirement not to act in a dishonest manner is an implied term in any contract. The States Employment Board is wholly satisfied that our existing policies and procedures are adequate for addressing any allegations of misdemeanours outlined by the Deputy and we have robust procedures for dealing with any breaches such as those outlined in the proposals. We have recently reviewed them at the same time as reviewing and updating our code of conduct. As we say in our comments paper, the code covers all the offences and we are entirely satisfied that they are compliant with Jersey employment law and natural justice. Specifically our code refers to governance, loyalty, integrity, objectivity, probity, accountability, respect and ethics and, in my view, covers all the errors of concern listed by the Deputy . However, and this is very important, it addresses it in the right way by referring to our code in the contract of employment rather than thrusting all the potential offences we think or presuppose our employees might commit up front in a way that suggests we almost expect our employees to commit such breaches. The proposition states that lying, obstructing, misleading and covering up should be punishable by termination of the employee's employment contract ".. without any compensation or compromise agreements, pension rights or bonuses depending upon the severity of the offence they have committed." If adopted it would, in my view, limit how the S.E.B. discharges its duties fairly and proportionately, potentially when dealing with disciplinary matters and the arbitrary application of such penalties could give rise to potential claims, particularly where there are concerns of accrued benefits within a pension scheme where a member's entitlement is accruing over a period of time. Such matters are determined by regulations of pension schemes and employees policies. This would create unintended consequences to the S.E.B. over which it would have no control. In fact, in many ways the proposition contradicts itself, asking for natural justice and then suggesting we mete out predetermined and possibly excessive and punitive punishment. I just do not think it has been thought through. I will strongly make the point that we have a proper disciplinary policy that is fair and objective and where wrongdoing is proven it will ensure that the appropriate penalties are applied. Furthermore, while any breaches of our code is regrettable, where this happens we will take robust action where it is justified. In 2021 there were 63 such disciplinary cases, which is less than 1 per cent of our workforce of 7,500, of which 5 resulted in dismissals. However, these numbers do not suggest a pandemic of problems that would justify this proposal in my view. I do understand the Deputy 's concerns because I have had some discussion with him on these matters but I do not think that the proposal is justified by the number of concerns that he has. The amnesty, in my view, is pointless because other than not suffering any direct penalty for their actions, the employee concerned would be effectively destroying their career. All staff know that we have a fair and effective disciplinary process but once again what

does offering an amnesty say to our staff about their employer's view of their integrity? Perception in this instance is an important factor. As far as the register is concerned, again disciplinary actions are recorded on staff records, so this, in my view, is unnecessary and is riddled with potential G.D.P.R. issues. I am not convinced that the Deputy has put forward any systemic issues that would require this action to be put into place. Most of what I have said is set out in the detailed comments paper from the States Employment Board and I do urge Members to read this before voting on this proposition. I will finish by saying this. Our public service has particularly risen to the demands of the past few years during the pandemic. They are a credit to us. I cannot see how any Member can support this proposition without seeing the intended slight to the professionalism of our employees as such approval of this would give. To approve this would also put S.E.B. at a serious disadvantage in the employment market with no gains as any areas of concern expressed by the Deputy have been covered by our codes of conduct and disciplinary process, which I believe are fit for purpose. I urge the Assembly to reject this proposition.

8. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Can I start by apologising to Deputy Higgins for twice throwing him off his flow when I raised points of order? I know that can be a frustrating thing to be on the other side of and I was genuinely trying to be helpful in doing so. In his opening speech he raised lots of cases, some of which are in the public domain and are well-known by Members and members of the public. Some of those referred to incidents where, frankly, things were handled appallingly in some instances, where I have concerns, that I am sure Deputy Higgins has concerns as well, that lessons have not necessarily been learnt and things do still need to be dealt with. The reason I made those interventions is because before us we have a proposition that is very specific in what it is asking us to agree and I want to know how it would help. Would it actually improve on things? Would it enhance accountability and would it improve the ability of Ministers to get on with their jobs and have their policy agendas fulfilled? That is something I care a lot about, partly because of my experience as a Minister, which Deputy Higgins did make a passing reference to in his speech, and in particular an incident that I have spoken out publicly about before and spoken to him about before, where I believe I encountered, shall we say, problems in attempting to fulfil my policy aspirations as a Minister. So I want to know what will improve as a result of adopting this proposition and having listened to the Deputy , having read the report to his proposition, being already aware of many of the examples that he raised, having read S.E.B.'s comments and having spoken as well to some of my colleagues outside the Assembly who have expertise in employment law matters, I have come to the conclusion that certainly part (a) of his proposition does not achieve anything. That is something I regret, not least because the optics are not great for voting against a proposition that asks you to agree that lying is bad. Of course lying is bad, but the point is that this is already implicit in employment contracts. It is superfluous to put these clauses in and in fact if you word them particularly specifically you may end up inadvertently having your hands tied beyond your back and not being able to achieve an appropriate outcome if there is some sort of dispute that needs to be dealt with. So it feels like it is superfluous and, therefore, what is the point in amending employment contracts for States employees when it is blindingly obvious that it is already the case that they should not be lying, they should not be obstructing and they should not be misleading. There are processes in place to deal with that when it occurs and if those processes are not working it is the process that is the problem, not necessarily what is written in their employment contract. I look back at instances that I had as a Minister where I was deeply unhappy with how things went and this sort of thing having been in the employment contract would have made no difference whatsoever and would not have assisted me as a Minister in trying to achieve my policy agenda. I think that if we want to improve accountability for particularly senior civil servants who work closely with Ministers, I think there are more important changes that need to be made in the structure of government, what responsibilities Ministers have directly with some of those officers they work with and moving away from the wholly unsatisfactory situation at the moment where Ministers do have to work very closely with officers who they rely on to implement their

policies, who are not accountable to the Minister, but who are accountable to somebody else who the Minister does not have any particular influence over. I think the way that our government structure has evolved in the last 4 years has unfortunately been regression and that needs to be seriously looked at. That is why I was pleased at the adoption of Deputy Young's proposition earlier, inspired obviously by the work that Senator Vallois and her subcommittee members had done too. That I think will do more good to enhance accountability from States employees in the future. The question of an amnesty, I could be open to that but I think we need much greater discussion on it than simply a Back-Bencher's proposition where we do not really know any more about it. It is not necessarily the worst idea in the world, but it would need to be thought through more, I think. Part (b) on the other hand, I may well vote in favour of that, to have an independent review of disciplinary policies and procedures, get that commissioned and make sure that disciplinary action follows the rules of natural justice. I do not see a problem with that at all, as long as that investigation that is done is wide-ranging and that it does speak to those who have an interest in this area and who are involved in employment matters, whether that is the workers' representatives or Government Ministers past and present. That could well be a useful exercise and that should be something that everybody would welcome, and I know while Deputy Higgins may refer to matters where he thinks things were handled badly from one side, I am sure that there are examples of workers being treated unfairly through disciplinary procedures that currently exist and making sure that it is fair to both sides is absolutely fundamental, so that those who work for the Government and ultimately for the public can know that they can uphold the standards that almost all of them join the civil service to uphold, because they care about the Island and want to see the very best for it. I know that the structures are there in place to support them doing their work, to be democratically accountable and to have a fair process in place when something does go wrong. I would urge Members to vote against parts (a), (c) and (d). I am openminded about part (b) though and I would give a friendly word of advice to Deputy Higgins, who I do respect and do think has time and again raised some extremely important issues in this Assembly on some of these cases, that he would be doing himself a lot of favours if when it came to his closing speech he was as direct as possible to the wording in this proposition, because what he is asking for is something very specific for which we have had an argument posed against it in the comments of the States Employment Board that make perfect sense and he has to overcome that if he seeks to win this proposition. I do not think his opening speech, where he really did go off the mark and talk about things that were very irrelevant, did him any favours. So on that basis I will vote against most parts of this proposition but possibly in favour of (b).

9. Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence :

I was going to make the same speech as the Constable of St. Ouen , except of course much less eloquently and with a very strong Jacques Cousteau accent. All this reminded me of travelling to America in the 1970s and if anybody else has done that they may remember the arrival cards that you had to fill out and sign. One of the items was: "I swear not to be a member of a communist party" which makes a lot of sense, and the other item was: "I swear I am not coming to the United States to kill the President of the U.S.A. (United States of America)." I always thought as a teenager that they have a law against murder. Does not murdering a head of state or an important political person carry aggravating factors? Why are they asking me this?

[12:00]

This is exactly what I find in this proposition, that we have got these practices, we have contracts, we have laws, all that is suggested here is already covered, and already exists. What it does is that it puts it in your face in a way that is resentful, distrustful and quite offensive and I do not see how this Assembly can go to its employees in that way. We just cannot do that.

10. Deputy G.P. Southern :

I have been looking at the words contained in part (a) and I have to say that had the Deputy sought any advice from me, and he has not, about what he would put into this proposition, which may or may not be totally and utterly valid, what he has put I think is a nice, healthy vent. I would have said to him that: "An act of gross misconduct such as lying, obstructing, misleading or attempting to mislead a Minister, the States Assembly, any Scrutiny Panel or Back-Bench' Member of the States of Jersey about any aspect of the employee's work for the States [take a breath] covering up or concealing any failure (act or omission) on the employee's part alone, or together with others, or on the part of others that they have become aware of at any time, on any matter, that could financially damage or bring the States of Jersey and/or the Government of Jersey into disrepute [take another deep breath] and that such lying, obstructing, misleading and covering up should be punishable by " and it does not say "death" but, "termination of their employment without any compensation or compromise agreements, pension rights or bonuses depending upon the severity of the offence they have committed." Take a third breath. Now, Mike, feel better yet? Because it sounds like it is just a vent. What, that is useful, is contained in (a) apart from that you feel better? I think the answer is very little. Those sorts of statements are difficult to prove with or without a framework around them that works to help or not. I would then say, ah, but when you come to article (b), vent over, maybe you have got something: "That an independent review of disciplinary policies and procedures should be commissioned to ensure that any disciplinary action follows the rules of natural justice" and if that applies to both sides of a relationship then so much the better. Would you want to tidy this up to make sure that it was clear and was going to be a fair process and not one-sided? Well, then, yes, do work on (b), Mike. This will do nicely. I can see what you are trying to achieve. I can see that it is probably worthwhile defining some of these actions and certainly investigating some of these actions, and that is where I stand, I think. (b) may be of some use and may be useful. (a) is just do you feel better now? Calm down.

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

I did have to go into the coffee room after this proposition was seconded, because I think new Members were saying around me: "Has it ever happened before, that a proposition has been so outrageous and went so off the mark?" Sir, I know you missed the delightful opening speech and I hope I can try to stick to the proposition, but it is so far off the mark the new Greffier did her best to bring him back and it was one of those: "Do I stand and give oxygen to the argument?" But, the Deputy said this Assembly is full of weak Ministers whose officers lie to them. Well, Deputy , I have never been weak but I have stepped up to the mark. I have challenged the positions of Ministers for a Ministry I think in the last 4 terms. I have been Assistant Minister, I have been Minister and not one of my officers have lied to me and that is because I do know my brief. I do not know where the Deputy thinks he can come in this Assembly from afar, Sir, no aspersions, I have been off with COVID and I am back today, and say, and he scatter-gunned it so far it was everyone, Scrutiny was being lied to, Scrutiny did not ask the right questions, officers tell us this and that and the Deputy , I have worked with the Deputy since he has been in here. He has his hobbyhorses. He sometimes tells the public that he will sort this. It is unsortable. He has gone right through to the end and then he still drags in Ministers to tell him the obvious, that you cannot give records to the parent of somebody who is now 30 years old, but the parent wants the records, and the Deputy tells you he will get them. The Ombudsman is going to be the answer to everything. Read what the Ombudsman does in the U.K. (United Kingdom). They look through all the process, they look through and find out whether this happened. They do not uphold every case because every case cannot be upheld, but it is one of them. I speak because it has been an absolute steep learning curve. We have been in 4 years where decisions and Ministers have been saying to officers: "No, this is what I want." I go back to the very quick setting up of the co-funded payroll scheme. Now, Ministers were demanding everyone was in, et cetera. Of course officers were telling us: "Well, this is the consequence, absolutely." Ministers obviously went to Council and things like that, we were given good advice. We still said: "No, this

is what we want." I do not recognise anything, not one thing the Deputy told me this morning. Yes, all the cases that are in the public domain, even the hounding out of Senator Syvret. I had great respect. I did not vote for the vote of no confidence in Senator Syvret. It was carried. Senator Syvret left Jersey. There was a clause if you are out of the Island for so many States sittings and off the Island for 6 months you are disbarred from being a States Member. That is exactly how Senator Syvret became not a States Member. If it was 31st March he came back on 1st April. He had been away for 6 months. The Deputy rewrites history in his own memoirs. Nobody else remembers anything like this, but he is allowed to come in, he has put it in writing. I am sorry, Sir, you do not approve but the word "lying" in P.71 occurs again and again and again, and he is accusing us of being lied to and he is accusing Ministers of lying again and again and again in this Assembly. I absolutely cannot see any merit in this, absolutely what Deputy Guida has said, do we really want to go to all of our employees: "Well, what else are you not?" Come on, you have got to go through a list. I mean you are not sexist, racist, misogynist, you are not this, you have to put everything in which you would obviously think your employees are not going to be, because we have got it in codes. It is one of them and I am thinking probably I should not have spoken, because I am so angry, but I am not speaking for myself. I am speaking for the people that the Deputy maligned in his speech, and I am speaking for my officers, the people who have dealt with me for the last 4 years, the people who dealt with me when I was Assistant Minister at Health. I did have responsibility for Children's Services and what a responsibility that was, going around homes making sure that children were listened to, et cetera. But I do not regret, as I say, standing up. He brought it into the Law Officers' Department. I mean, the advice we get is really good advice, but no, no, no, people are undermining, striking things out. The Deputy has got so many tentacles he must be 6 octopuses, listening around and he knows all what is going on. The Deputy does not know a lot. The Deputy has never tried to find out a lot. The Deputy has never put himself up to be counted. He does not want to be a Minister. It has always suited him to stand back and throw the stones, throw the stones and throw more stones and see where they land and he has scattered them far and wide today. Everyone here, Ministers, Back- Benchers, the law officers, even the Greffier, everyone and I disassociate myself with the Deputy as far as I can and I am not voting for anything, and I am sorry that Deputy Tadier did second this, because you do not second something that is so outrageous.

12. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I want to focus on the words of the proposition and ask some genuine questions about what it means. I think that perhaps I have been called a pedant before, and I do not think that is fair, because I do not think I am. I think I just want to understand what the words mean and the implications of something. So it comes from a background of representing people in disciplinary cases and obtaining training and the wider implications of that, and being involved in the reality of the effect on people's lives when they face actions. Also, from listening to some of the things that the Deputy talked about and the situations that we have that I personally think that in many of the cases if they had been dealt with early on with proper procedure they would not have drawn people into outcomes or no outcomes that have ruined lives. That is why it is important that we have mechanisms correct. First of all, right at the beginning, part (a) it says: "That contracts of employment for all States' employees from 1st July 2022 should" and then continues. Is that for anyone entering the service from July 2022 or is that for everyone pre-existing? That is en masse changing contracts of employment. Now, being absolutely detached from the reason for doing that, any action in changing everyone's contract of employment en masse overnight is not something that I would support without consultation with the employees and with their union representatives, because they have to have a say in that. So I want to know what that means, "lying, obstructing, misleading or attempting to mislead" defining that and who is going to make the decision on that. I think this may well be what is implied in terms of, and I think there is an irony here it would be the S.E.B. that would bring forward the legislation, given that the S.E.B. faced a lot of criticism and I have to say I have had criticism of the S.E.B. myself in a previous life. I have sat with the S.E.B. and had those direct arguments and fought my case for

people and am quite proud of the fact that I did, and that is the right thing to do. But anyway, we move on. "Any aspect of the employee's work for the States" I mean that is very wide-ranging. I just want to know the mechanism for doing that. What would that look like if we were to do that, because I have a concern, and I think Deputy Tadier touched upon it, in terms of unintended consequences for employers who want to get rid of one of their employees and ruin their lives? It is the part after part (ii), "lying, obstructing, misleading and covering up should be punishable". The word "punishable" I do not think should be in any contract of employment. It is not constructive, it is not useful and it is not conducive to any sort of relationship. "By termination of their employment without any compensation or compromise agreements", we will come to talk about compromise agreements later. "Pension rights or bonuses depending upon the severity of the offence they have committed." Now, the Deputy mentioned a number of high-level situations and I agree action needs to be taken, but I think court action needs to be taken on some of the things that he was talking about. They are crimes. Where is the scale here of this "upon the severity"? I cannot agree with something that says "upon the severity" without knowing the scale of the severity. If somebody obstructs a Minister by not passing on a piece of paper and not passing on the report so that they stand up in the Assembly and are not equipped for a question, look like a complete idiot and then go away and say: "You made me look like a complete idiot. You have obstructed. I have never liked you. Right." It might sound like a strange situation but what we are trying to solve here is that action by giving more power to possibly that action.

[12:15]

I just want to know from the Deputy how that would be insured against, because I am not voting for anything that is going to put employees who are not guilty of such severity in a difficult position. Some employees get things wrong in their careers over long periods and when they get them wrong the severity of the action taken about them can make or break them as people. I have defended people whose careers were on the line I thought totally inappropriately because the severity of what they have done "wrong" was not that, but that is what they faced, and so we have to be extremely careful, is the point I am making, in how we deal with that severity. That is not covering anything up. That is transparency and everybody knowing where they stand and what action will be taken, so that is very important. Part (b), an independent review of disciplinary procedures, yes, absolutely in the report produced from the panel it recommends, I would just point out recommendation 15, which is the Public Service Ombudsman by the end of 2022, before the 2022 election, which has not happened, but we did recommend that. Also, we recommended a terms of reference for a public inquiry into the resolution of outstanding complaints against the Government of Jersey, so recommendation made, and I think that should happen. That could be part of an independent review on disciplinary procedures. There are legacy things that do need to be addressed appropriately and we may not like the outcomes, but they need to be there if we are ever going to get any form of closure for some people who are still suffering, so I understand that. The amnesty, I do not know what that means, to be quite frank. You can own up to something but that owning up will be kept on a register. It is not like a gun amnesty where you give the gun up and that is the end of it. I just do not understand what that means, and I think the wording here is so important, because it will have an impact on people. How is that going to be presented? Every Member of the States civil service and beyond, employed by the States, will get an email to say: "It is amnesty week. Own up to something that you have seen happening, shop your colleagues if you want" because I do not understand how that is going to work. I do understand the frustration of the Deputy . I have heard many times the issues that he has raised, and I do understand in many ways. "To request the States Employment Board to initiate the necessary steps, including instructions for the development of any legislation that may be required, to implement paragraphs (a) to (d) above" personally I think we need to have some independence from the S.E.B. in terms of these structures, so that they are agreed upon and the Public Service Ombudsman role is very important in that and an independent commission perhaps needs to be set up for the public service, in order that the structure and the way it is working with the disciplinary

rules and legacy issues is there, so that we cannot say to anybody: "Well, you only came to that outcome because of this reason." That true independence is going to be really important, at some time into the future, but we do not want to give anything away about future ideas. I understand the frustration. I hope in the summing up the Deputy can answer the questions as questions about the wording of this proposition and not beyond that, because that is what I am asking. I am asking how this is going to work, because very frequently in this Assembly I do think that we have not looked at the wording to see the implications of it. I think we did it in this sitting, but we will not go into that now. So those are the problems I have with this. In terms of natural justice, one of the important keys of natural justice, and I do not know why I am telling you this, Sir, you are the judge on these things, but there you go, I will give you my 10p worth

The Bailiff :

You have to tell me. You are not allowed to tell the Members directly. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, exactly. But the severity needs to be reflected in the punishment and in some areas it is not about if we get that severity wrong we end up punishing and amplifying the problem that we started with and that is the complexity of industrial relations and people relations and relationships with people. As soon as we get into: "We are just covering everything up" that is not what we are talking about because we will never come to a resolution for people whose lives have been seriously affected by the past on this Island and we have to do that and we still have not done it, to be quite frank. Those are my thoughts on this proposition.

Deputy G.C. Guida: Sorry, Sir, are we quorate? The Bailiff :

We are quorate, because I am making the assumption that those who have spoken recently online are still online and they have not all gone home, or at least gone out for a cup of tea.

The Connétable of St. John :

Sir, can I ask a question of the Attorney General, please? The Bailiff :

You can ask a question of the Attorney General, yes. The Connétable of St. John :

Is it permissible for an organisation to withhold pension payments in any circumstances other than fraud?

The Bailiff :

Are you able to assist, Mr. Attorney, or would you like more time for that? Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

In general terms, Sir, I think the Constable of St. John raises a very valid point. In terms of pension contributions, those are contributions where someone in the past has provided services in part in return for those contributions, so to withhold those pension contributions or to deprive that person of their pension rights is a very draconian step and, for my part, I am not immediately aware of any circumstances apart from fraud where that might be justified.

The Bailiff :

Could Members who are participating remotely please indicate that they are here? Senator Ferguson has done so, the Deputy of St. John has done so. Could others please because it will depend upon whether or not we are quorate?

The Connétable of St. Ouen : Sir, I am still alive and kicking. The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed, so we have 5 definitely here online. I think we are not quorate, are we? Yes, we are still quorate. The States is competent to continue, unlike my mathematics, I think. Very well. Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition?

13. The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Just a few words which I would like the Deputy to clear up in his summing up, and I speak with experience received between 2008 and 2011 of having a seat on the States Employment Board, so I have a bit of previous, if I can call it that, in the matter. The Deputy refers to lying, obstructing, misleading and so on, but we do need to be careful about how that might be interpreted. While actions may be done based on the best information of the day and decisions made based on the best information of the day, later on it may turn out not to be the case and those particular accusations could be accurate. So retrospect is a wonderful thing, but I do not think that it is something that would stick. When I say "would stick" that is quite an important point, because it is not for me to be categoric but in my experience as a Centenier and when charges are brought the case has to be pretty good, otherwise it is a complete waste of time bringing them to a court situation, because they clearly and upon advice will not succeed, so everybody's time gets wasted and lots of money gets wasted. I think the Deputy very often overlooks that process aspect of what has to be dealt with. So while one supports the principle that the Deputy brings, that there should be none of this going on, I do not believe that it does at the level that he suggests and certainly my experience when I was Minister between 2008 and 2011 was not the case. I felt I had an excellent working relationship with officers and was very pleased of their support and, as Deputy Martin alluded to earlier on, it is a question of knowing your brief. If a Minister fails to know their brief then I think they have to take the penalty for that.

14. Deputy K.F. Morel :

I apologise to Members for extending the debate. All I really wanted to say was, like others have said, I understand where Deputy Higgins is coming from with this. Having heard him over the years, it does not surprise me that he is bringing this, but it is an entirely misguided proposition in so many ways and I just wanted to highlight the way that I feel it is most misguided. That is, it has been mentioned many times by this States Assembly and other States Assemblies going back years, Islanders who are not States Members have said it, one of the concerns or issues that has been highlighted about the public service is a blame culture, and a blame culture restricts people and stops people doing things, it stops people trying to find new solutions and be innovative, it stops people acting quickly because they are worried about acting too quickly and they will get blamed for it. While I do not condone in any way anybody who misleads or lies any time, any place in life, full stop, let alone in public service, when I read this proposition all I read is something that is going to entrench the blame culture even more firmly, because effectively this proposition, if it were to be adopted, is States Members saying we blame .. we as States Members are adopting a proposition that blames public servants in general in the main. So I do not believe that a blame culture in any organisation helps that organisation flourish and so to put my vote to a proposition that I believe would entrench a blame culture even further is something that I just cannot do. So that is my main point. The second, perhaps slightly lesser point, is the idea of an amnesty. It does play into the blame

culture thing. The idea of an amnesty I think is equally misguided because by saying there is an amnesty it says that we believe there are cover-ups, lies, et cetera, and we are going to give public servants a set amount of time to own up to those lies. I have been trying to put myself into the position of someone who perhaps works in the public service and would be faced with this amnesty. You can imagine the email coming through, dropping into the inbox and saying: "Dear employee, thank you for your valued service over the years. States Members have decided that there should be an amnesty because we believe public servants have been lying and misleading and we are giving you this opportunity, up until 30th June 2022, to tell us about your lies and your misleadings and your cover-ups." I am just trying to imagine seeing that email dropping into my inbox and thinking: "I am a public servant who has worked very hard for the States, for the Island, and who has always done so diligently and with the Island's best interests at my heart. How am I meant to react to this email? What am I meant to do?" and my real concern here is that some people who perhaps at some point have I do not know, perhaps they sent an email saying: "Sorry, I read your email" but they had not read the email. Maybe they will suddenly be thinking: "Do I need to own up to that because that was a cover-up? I was covering up my not having read it by saying I had read it." I fear that you would get lots of people coming forward with tiny indiscretions and tiny misdemeanours for fear that they might be found out at a future date and then lose their jobs and their pensions while anyone who perhaps has been involved in something which is genuinely of a serious nature would almost certainly not wish to test whether this amnesty was genuine or not, and so they would probably keep that quiet in any case. I feel that we would end up with lots of public servants telling us about lots of tiny effectively meaningless indiscretions. Nobody should lie or mislead; that is a simple fact. Nobody should lie or mislead a Minister; that is a simple fact. This proposition does not deal with any of this. This proposition entrenches a blame culture and is in genuine danger of creating a greater sense of fear in the public service, at a time when we want trust. People work diligently and innovatively if they trust the people they are working with and the people they are working for. There is no world in which I can support this proposition.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak then I close the debate and call upon Deputy Higgins to respond.

[12:30]

15. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I do thank Members for taking part in the debate. I know many have been critical. Some think there were elements that might be acceptable, but I think it was an important debate to have. I also think it is important that these matters should be discussed in public and so whether people agree with what I am saying or do not at least the matter is vented out in the Island. Anyway, I will go through and respond to some of those who have asked me questions and some of the comments that have been made. The Constable of St. John did not think it was necessary. He thinks the existing processes are fine, are being made, perhaps more training. He mentioned the S.E.B. say they have everything we need and we should utilise the tools, although he does mention that he does support the idea of an amnesty, although some people have obviously mentioned some concerns with it, and he asks the States Employment Board to consider. What I will say on this is that I expected nothing other from the States Employment Board than to say that we have everything we need, everything is hunky dory and we do not need anything, we do not need to consider these issues. The truth is far from that and anyone who has read the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports, for example, just even on compromise agreements and nondisclosure, will see that they have been repeatedly criticised for failure to act and I do not even think at this particular point in time they have complied with them all. I do look forward to the next Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the States Employment Board, which he has written one report, and equally on nondisclosure because you will see how good they really are and if everything is hunky dory. Senator Le Fondré obviously does not agree; he is

chair of the States Employment Board. He, like others, has mentioned it sends the wrong message to employees. He talked about the level of evidence that would be required, again some data protection issues, but what I would say is that those who have mentioned data protection, of having a register, I am not asking for any register that was not totally 100 per cent compliant with the Data Protection (Jersey) Law. I would expect the officers, if they go away and come up with an amnesty, that they will consult with the Office of the Information Commissioner and make sure it is totally compliant and that employees do not need to worry about it. Again, Senator Gorst was saying the same thing, that there are a number of tools available, and he does not think the proposition would work. I think he did mention that work needs to be done about some aspects of the States Employment Board. He also said there is a kernel of truth in what I say but then I cloak everything in a conspiracy theory. Well, I am sorry, I do not. I have served in this Assembly for almost 14 years, and I am probably one of those Members who have brought more individual cases and fought for individuals than anybody in this Assembly. If I move on to Deputy Southern , and I will just mention this now while I remember it, he said I was probably venting. Others have mentioned frustration. The truth of the matter is being a States Member is frustrating. It is especially frustrating when you feel you are trying to represent people and bring forward the wrongs that have happened to them and try to get the system to address the problems and they do not. You feel like you are beating your head against a wall. I will say that again, like others, you sometimes wonder whether you really want to be a part of the Assembly. What are you accomplishing if you are just going to be beating your head against the wall all the time? Yes, there is a degree of frustration, and I think back to the very first day, and I must pay tribute to the former Deputy Roy Le Hérissier who told me 2 things right at the very beginning, and I think it is relevant to all States Members, especially people who are thinking of coming into the States. First of all you are going to be totally frustrated. That was number one. The second one is you will not have any real friends, because again there are so many other factors that come into it. Anyway, just a few comments here, he said basically I was effectively smearing all civil servants. That is totally not true and I stressed at the very beginning of my proposition about my admiration for most civil servants. Having been a civil servant myself I know about their work ethic and how well they do. I also stated at the very beginning I am not criticising them. I felt that the only way to deal with the rogue few, the minority, was to try to find a way of constraining them and I thought the contractual method is one way. The only thing is I could not target it directly at them, so therefore it would have to be a general provision in a contract of employment and, as I have stated, they had nothing to fear from it. First, they do not meet with Ministers, Scrutiny Panels or even States Members normally and, secondly, they would not lie. It is the very small minority that this proposition was aimed at, so I do not believe I am smearing them all. In fact, when you speak to many civil servants it is interesting what they say about the senior civil servants in their departments and so on. Now, Senator Moore , she mentioned that the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel has reviewed this area and the code of conduct is still being considered and under review. This has been going on for as long as I have been in the States. In fact, the current vice-chair told me when he came into the position that the whole thing was not fit for purpose and they were working on it, but it has not come to fruition. This is again one of the frustrations of being in the States; 4 years later we still have not got it. I am trying to read my own writing, which is a problem, and in fact I will ask Members at the end if there is something I do miss at the end they can always ask me again and I will answer it. Deputy Vallois, she has helped people in the past with regard to bullying and honesty, et cetera, and does not believe that the S.E.B. has always worked as well as it should. I have written down here again the Members' code of conduct is out of date and I accept that. I understand the frustration and she has had her own issues, and in fact I wish she had elaborated a bit more on some of the ones that she privately confided to me and others, because I do believe these things should have been put out. She believes that the public is frustrated. Well, not only is the public frustrated but so am I. We seem to fail to deal with these issues and she mentioned again the Public Sector Ombudsman. To be honest, this has been one of the biggest failures in the

States and I think for almost 14 years we have been considering a Public Sector Ombudsman scheme.

The current Chief Minister said he was going to bring it in. It has not happened. I have given him credit in the past, because a lot of things have been kicked down the road by other Chief Ministers and he has taken them by the horns, but on this one he has dropped the ball. It should have been in and it is something that is necessary. Unfortunately, I think it will go on for many more years. Why? We are trying to make it too complicated. They are wanting to bring in all the health service complaints under the Ombudsman. It is far better to bring in a straightforward ombudsman system and then bolt bits on as we did with the Data Protection Law and the Freedom of Information Law, bringing different bodies into the legislation because if we want the perfect plan it will never happen, but it is something that is desperately needed by the public. She mentioned, and this is true, the frustration that comes when no one does anything and does not respond. This is characteristic of the States of Jersey. We can have meetings with civil servants, we can have meetings with Ministers, and you do not get the feedback and you have to press, things go by and nothing ever happens. Deputy Tadier , again he is aware of the long list of casework and frustrations that I and others have had and would like to see the civil service perhaps more accountable. He does not - and I cannot make out my own writing here - believe that my proposition impugns the reputation of the civil service. It was never meant to; I was trying to deal with a problem, and it is the very small minority. He agrees with the thrust of what I am trying to do. Nobody wants to see obstruction, et cetera, and he says he would like to support part (a). He thinks gross misconduct .. but he was worried about the process and possible abuse, as did some other Members. Let me say this. Although I have mentioned that people who, let us say, are accused of lying or any of the other things I have mentioned and end up being brought to book for it would go through a procedure, which I believe has to be completely supported with natural justice, I have supported States workers on many cases where they have been abused by their management and the process has been wrong. I will give you one example, and this is not one that I dealt with but someone else has dealt with. Over 2 years was spent investigating or trying to fight an investigation and in the end it was won because the whole process was unfair. So, I am not in favour of anything that is not fair to both workers and the employer. It has to be scrupulously fair to everybody. For example, you should know, if you are accused of something, what you are accused of. You should have access to all the evidence. Does this happen? No, it does not. It should but it does not. So there is no question any Member who thinks that I would support anything or want anything that would not treat employees fairly is totally wrong. Constable Buchanan says that he thinks integrity is an implied term and that if we put it into contractual terms it will put people off and who would want to be in the public sector. But the truth of the matter is it is the public sector. It is not a private company who can put whatever they like in their contracts. Remember it is taxpayers' money and it is the lives of the citizens of this Island that are being affected by the civil servants. I see absolutely no reason why we should not have an explicit term in their contract of employment. As I say, he has already said that he thinks that existing procedures are in place that deal with these matters but address them in the right way, and he thinks it would limit the ability of the S.E.B. to act. I think that is absolute rubbish. Again, he has admitted that we have talked about some of these issues, but he does not see that it meets the need. He mentioned data protection as well; I have already answered that. Senator Mézec was concerned that some lessons have not been learnt but he would like to know how this would help; for example, make things better for Ministers. Well, for a start, it acts as a deterrent. At the present time I do not think there are any deterrents to civil servants if they wish to lie to Ministers. We may say these things are there. Name anyone in the public sector who has been held to account for their actions. I cannot think of anybody. I hope people afterwards will give me examples, but I cannot think of any. He does not think part (a) will achieve anything because of optics. He thinks the process is the problem. He thinks there are more important changes that can be made. Well, I would like to know why he has not brought them forward or anybody else has not brought them forward. I am putting forward a proposal to try and deal with what I think is a perceived wrong. It may not be right but at least I am making the attempt. Who else in the Assembly has brought forward a proposition to try and deal with these things? Okay, Deputy Young has with talking about machinery of government; I applaud

that. He thinks part (b) is fine and would support. Again, he does not want to see workers treated unfairly, and neither do I. Deputy Guida just repeated what others have said. Deputy Southern criticised the wording of the proposition. True. I accept it was long and perhaps verbose, but one of the problems we have as States Members is we have to write our own propositions. Yes, we can get some help from some of the officers in the Greffe now - we never had that before - but we do not have law officers, law draftsmen, and all the other aids that Ministers have, so therefore we do not always get the wording right. I think it is a bit much to expect us to get everything right in the proposition because much of this proposition would be for others to do.

[12:45]

It would be for the States Employment Board to come forward with proposals to deal with a change in a contract and also for dealing with .. if we have an independent review of disciplinary procedures, then that would be built into this as well. The working of the amnesty, again I cannot be overly prescriptive on that, but again proposals will come forward and we have to decide whether we agree with them or not. Okay, I think Deputy Southern agrees with (b) because again it is a review and it would probably be worthwhile. Deputy Martin was very much on the defensive and she said that I said the Assembly was full of weak Ministers. No, I said there are some weak Ministers, in my opinion, and I know others have expressed the same view. She felt it very necessary to defend her own position. I do not know if that is insecurity on her part but certainly I did not name Deputy Martin as a weak Minister but she obviously feels she must be to try and justify it. She mentioned Senator Syvret and she has got this wrong. I mentioned how officers conspired to get rid of Senator Syvret and he was removed from his position, from the Minister for Health and Social Services position, by the Chief Minister and the States supported it. It was not when he was removed from the States because he had been out of the Island for 6 months. She is conflating 2 separate instances. She also mentioned that she was responsible for the Children's Service when she was an Assistant Minister. I did note that when the Care Inquiry came she did not give any evidence whatsoever to the Care Inquiry, and yet she was responsible for the Children's Service at a time when many of the abuses were taking place. She also said that I have not put myself forward to be a Minister. That is false. I have been in the Assembly 14 years and I can remember I think it was within the first 3 days I put myself forward to become the Minister for Economic Development. I remember Senator Maclean, who did get the job, saying to me afterwards he was shocked I got 20 votes and they did not even know me, and he had been an Assistant Minister for, I do not know, 3 years before. So it is wrong to say I have not tried. I would be prepared to try for Ministerial office. Deputy Ward was more concerned with ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I do not particularly want to interrupt your closing speech but it is not necessary to deal with every point raised by any individual. It is more appropriate to deal with the relevant points, the relevant points which will enable Members to decide whether or not to vote for your proposition and, if so, in which parts.

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

Sir ..

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I will be finished in a few moments anyway. The Deputy of Grouville :

.. could I interrupt?

The Bailiff :

Well, it depends why; on what basis?

The Deputy of Grouville :

I am absolutely very reluctant to; however, I have a lunchtime appointment to attend where I am giving a speech and I just wondered how much longer the Deputy is going to go on for.

The Bailiff :

Again, Deputy , this is entirely a separate question but it has been asked. Because we have reached the point past where we would normally propose the adjournment, could you indicate roughly how much further you have to go with your closing speech? We do not want to inhibit you but it may be that it would be best to adjourn and continue afterwards.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

No, Sir, I expect to be no more than 5 minutes maximum. The Bailiff :

Do Members agree to remain for .. yes, very well, it appears that we can continue and then we will deal with the adjournment after that. Thank you.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Deputy Ward wanted to know about the words in the proposition and he also mentioned did it apply to pre-existing as well as new. I would like it to apply to everybody and the point is to have an amnesty we need to have it to apply to pre-existing ones. It is one of these things, as I mentioned with Deputy Southern . We write these propositions. We are trying to get it over. We do not always get it right, but the point is I would do nothing, absolutely nothing, that would put existing civil servants in jeopardy of the system being abused against them. I think that is the main point that he would have. He also mentioned perhaps court action should be taken in many of the cases I have talked about. Well, as I mentioned very early on, who can afford justice in Jersey when you are being charged £500 an hour? Again, he was asking me about prescribing circumstances where, say, obstruction occurs. I could not, as I think anybody else could not, define every example of obstruction to tie it down completely. He also said he believed he could support part (b). I think, unless anybody else has anything that they really want me to address, I will just close and say that in terms of the proposition itself I have identified what I believe is a problem of a small minority and I really refute all the claims made that I am trying to smear everyone and it would stop recruitment. Anyone who is honest and wants to do a good job would not lie, would not obstruct and would not cover up anyway. In terms of part (b), there are people who are prepared to support that and I hope most Members will support it. It is absolutely right that we have a set of procedures for our employees that are fully compliant with the best practice and natural justice. I do not believe we have. There are too many examples that have come forward where the existing system has failed, but I would expect if we have an independent review maybe there is one that we can get confidence in. As far as (c) is concerned and the amnesty, the amnesty goes with the fact of trying to uncover what has gone on. Because I have tried to give some examples very early on that we have had problems. I was accused by, I think, the Constable of St. Brelade or maybe Senator Gorst , I do not know, of trying to wrap things up in a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, we know there have been cover-ups. The Care Inquiry proved beyond all doubt that abuse had been going on about children and about how people had tried to raise issues, including Senator Syvret, and yet they were ignored or they were blocked and all the rest of it. These things do happen. I do believe there are some other cover-ups taking place in areas. It enables us to find out. In terms of (d), the register to go with the amnesty, there were a lot of people who said that it goes against data protection. It does not. You work with the Information Commissioner's Office and you make sure the register is totally compliant. So, finally, I have asked the S.E.B. to initiate the necessary steps and bring it forward. Now, I think it is highly unlikely with some of the comments made that it is to go through, but I think part of it is well worth looking at the amnesty and looking at the review of the existing disciplinary

procedures and so on. So, where Members cannot support the whole of the proposition, and I shall take it in part, then I would ask them to support those parts they can.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . How do you wish to take the parts, just (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) quite separately?

Deputy M.R. Higgins: Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Well, then the first vote is on part (a). I ask the Greffier to open the voting and Members to vote. Those who are participating remotely please vote in the what has become customary way. The vote is on part (a) of the proposition. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Part (a) has been defeated.

The Bailiff :

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

The Bailiff :

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