Under Article 24(2), I am pleased to inform Members that I have asked Deputy Morel to perform the duties as Deputy Chief Minister, and I very much look forward to working with him. [Approbation]

3. Appointment of the President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move on to appointment of a President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee under Standing Order 121, and invite Members to make nominations for President.

Deputy C. Curtis of St. Helier Central:

I would like to nominate Deputy Mézec.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin:

I would like to nominate Deputy Scott.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? In accordance with Standing Order 121, I invite candidates to speak and answer questions in the order in which they were nominated, beginning with Deputy Mézec. Candidates will speak for up to 10 minutes and then Members will have up to 20 minutes to ask them questions. Both periods will be brought to an end by the ringing of the bell. We will start with Deputy Mézec but before you start, Deputy Mézec, we need to ensure that Deputy Scott has left the meeting and gone into a separate meeting staffed by members of the Greffe team. Perhaps you will confirm to me, Greffier, when that has occurred.

3.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South:

It is extremely tempting to simply reuse half of my material from last week but Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to do so. I am standing as a candidate for President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee with the support and confidence of a majority of that committee. I am standing for one reason and one reason only, which is that I believe I can make a positive difference to help lead Scrutiny during these important times that we are facing. With many challenges lying ahead of us it is vitally important that Scrutiny serves its constitutional function of acting as a critical friend of the Government and holding Ministers to account. We will have our work cut out for us given the issues that are likely to hit our agenda very quickly. The Scrutiny Liaison Committee will have to work together as a team to ensure that collectively we have everything covered by our panels or by establishing review panels as and when it is appropriate, depending on the subject. We must be open to the contribution of all non-Executive Members and take a proactive approach in our investigations and evidence gathering. We do so not by acting as an official opposition to the Government but by being objective, open and constructive. As I said when I ran for Chair of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, I have much experience in Scrutiny, serving in various roles and on various panels. I have a record which can be examined and I am proud to stand by it as a Member that has made a positive contribution and never lets my strongly held political convictions impact on that work in a way which is not in line with the principles of Scrutiny. That same approach is what I would continue with as President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee if Members choose me today. The previous S.L.C. (Scrutiny Liaison Committee) did a lot of good work in developing the role of Scrutiny in our machinery of government. They did this with some of the investment which was made in the States Greffe to provide for better resourcing of Scrutiny and they took on a huge workload and it was very noticeable that there was an increase in output that came from Scrutiny in the last term, be that reports, comment papers and amendments more than ever before. This new Scrutiny Liaison Committee is starting from a strong position and has the benefit of a legacy report containing some very good recommendations which can act as a blueprint for this term of office. I am hoping that where they require co-operation with the Government to implement that this will be seamless as, of course, those recommendations have the signature of the current Chief Minister on them. I want to touch on a few of those recommendations. One which has been mentioned previously is the recommendation tracker. I understand that work has been going on between the Greffe and government staff on this so I would propose that the S.L.C. has an early briefing on this with an aim to getting something up and running soon. I hope that that will be uncontroversial. There are also some important pieces of legislation that will likely come to us soon on the establishment of a Public Appointments Commission and the Public Services Ombudsman.

[9:45]

The previous Scrutiny Liaison Committee consented to these laws, giving the S.L.C. a role in the appointments of some of these positions, a little bit similar to what I brought forward in the Children’s Commissioner Law, when I was Minister for Children, so that it is not just the Government with a say on this. The aim of that is to help strengthen the independence of those roles, so of course we will want to make sure and check that that is all on track and that will be delivered. There are broader comments in the legacy report too on public engagement. Obviously COVID made some of that difficult in the last term but the introduction of webcasting of public hearings and the increased social media output was a very noticeable positive development. But towards the end of the last term we started to see some on-streets engagement where Scrutiny ran a stall several times on King Street. I thought that was really good and we should try to do that kind of thing more often. It will be good for Scrutiny to be publicly seen and accessible and be able to have face-to-face conversations with passers-by, help inform the public of what Scrutiny’s role is in our machinery of government, and perhaps encourage people to make submissions to us who otherwise might not have known that scrutiny was happening. But in particular, I want this S.L.C. to enhance its engagement with young people. The legacy report mentions some ways of including this consideration automatically into Scrutiny scoping documents, and we will certainly want to look at that. Some Members were at the presentation from the Youth Parliament yesterday, which was absolutely brilliant, and the young people who took part were so articulate and had clearly done a huge amount of research and engaged with their peers to find out how they felt. [Approbation] I think that engaging with this body is definitely something that we ought to be looking to do. There was also a recommendation in that legacy report looking at how members of political parties might fit into Scrutiny and whether anything needs to be done to update to account for this development in our political system. I wholeheartedly support that. As a member of a party myself I think that any updates to the Standing Orders or codes of conduct which can provide clarity on the dos and don’ts for members of parties is to be welcomed and this can only serve to safeguard confidence in these processes. I would commit to engaging with the Chair of P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) on this. She mentioned this in her comments last week saying that she knows this needs to be looked at and, of course, I would be happy in whatever way I can be helpful to help input into that. The last point that I want to make in my opening remarks is on something which is not really touched upon much in the legacy report, but which I think is worth mentioning now, and that is the issue of professional development for States Members. This was something that came up in the P.P.C. sub-committee report on democratic accountability, which I was a member of and helped put together. We talked about providing ongoing support and training for Government Ministers but I think that our up-and-coming scrutineers should also receive training and access to resources to help them learn and develop their skills so that they can be more effective. I guess that that would also probably be led by P.P.C. but of course the S.L.C. will want to input into that and make sure that that is available to scrutineers. One area in particular that I think we should focus on in any professional development is the issue of legislative scrutiny. There have been for many years debates on how we conduct scrutiny on legislation because this Assembly does get lots of very comprehensive and complicated laws coming through. We have to admit that it is a little bit strange that sometimes we can go through a first, second and third reading all in the space of a few minutes, without a pause between readings, for a chance to go over everything and make sure that it is written properly before nodding it through. There have been some suggestions in the past about requiring there to be a pause and a minimum time period made available for a Scrutiny Panel to look at legislation. If we go down that route or another route, that will be for this Assembly as a whole to decide if that is the best way to conduct its business. But either way, I think there is a case for saying that if we are going to do more legislative scrutiny then Scrutiny members should get some training on that. Legislation is not a simple thing, and I speak as somebody who has a law degree and I know that when you read legislation it can sometimes feel like you are reading a foreign language and having to understand how different Articles match up with one another or how they match up with other pieces of legislation that are referred to. It is important for us, as legislators, that we understand how it works, and if there needs to be training on that I think that is something that ought to be welcomed. That can feature in part of a broader discussion on how Scrutiny conducts legislative scrutiny. That is the end of everything I had to say in my opening remarks but just in summary on that, I am standing as a candidate for President of Scrutiny Liaison with the support and confidence of the majority of that committee, with a record behind me that shows that I am capable and I uphold principles of Scrutiny when I am acting in that capacity, with the benefit of a strong set of recommendations from the previous S.L.C., which can act as a blueprint for taking Scrutiny forward in this term so that we continue to develop its place in our machinery of government.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are there questions for Deputy Mézec?

3.1.1 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity:

I ask this because I really want to know Deputy Mézec’s answer. The issue at hand is - I am struggling with it - and that is how will Deputy Mézec as President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee work with his own party in the sense of will he allow them to vote against his own recommendation? Will there just be a constant party whip so that it is constantly 4 votes for whatever ... and I do not ask this lightly. I ask this because I really want to understand because from my perspective it has to be free. It cannot be a case of every time there is a vote in the Scrutiny Liaison Committee there are 4 votes one way and 2 votes the other way. I just ask him to explain how he will deal with that dynamic.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

It is absolutely a fair question and I guess the first point I would make in response to it is to look at the record on this, which is that there have been occasions in the past where my party colleagues have not supported a Scrutiny Panel that I have been on when we brought an amendment to a piece of legislation on something that has happened in the past. Speaking as a party leader, we are obviously committed to our manifesto but the work of Scrutiny is not on your political agenda, it is on the evidence base and the objectivity of what is before you when a Minister brings forward a policy for legislation. I would certainly hope that when Scrutiny brings forward amendments, which would end up requiring a vote on the floor of this Chamber, it is not doing so based on any political agenda. It is doing so because it has a good evidence base behind it to suggest that what it is doing is the right thing and it ought to try to convince Members of this Assembly that it is the right thing to do. As far as party whips go, we do not have a formal whipping system so I guess that would not apply there. But we do speak to one another and try to be as well-informed about what issues are coming up and if a Scrutiny recommendation has been presented to this Assembly then I would fully expect members of my party to educate themselves as much as possible on it, and I would hope that it would not be coming to the Assembly unless it was necessary.

3.1.2 Connétable D. Johnson of St. Mary

In his address the candidate, if I can call him that, gave reference to review panels. Having been a member of S.L.C. towards the end of the last term I was struck, is perhaps the right word, that the number of review panels were manned or womaned almost entirely by the S.L.C. itself without outside panel members. Would he care to comment as to whether he will be minded to bring in other members of Scrutiny to reinforce those panels, perhaps particularly with a view to demonstrating a wider interest of Assembly Members on the panel?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

It felt to me that in the last term that there was an increase in the use of review panels from what I had seen in previous terms of office, and there was some good work done by those. There was the Brexit Review Panel, the Our Hospital Review Panel, the Gender Pay Gap Review Panel as well. To what extent we use review panels outside of the standing panels will be a matter for the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis whether a particular review or piece of work naturally sits in one standing panel that has the capacity to deal with it. But when there are subjects that come up, which absolutely do cross portfolios and which could not reasonably sit in the remit of one panel, then setting up a review panel to examine that I think has been shown to be a positive thing. The one thing to bear in mind on that, and this will be something that Scrutiny Liaison will have to consider, is the resourcing of those panels. There were comments in the legacy report on this, that Scrutiny had had an increase in resourcing but even if you are looking at it objectively it is probably just about at the minimum that it can cope with. If we were to establish a larger number of review panels there would have to be a conversation of making sure that they get adequate officer support, that it does not detract from other pieces of work that are going on, and that they can conduct that work effectively with the resourcing that they need.

3.1.3 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Does the candidate think that it is slightly insulting to the one Progress Party member and the independent member of the Scrutiny chairs that they would always vote against Reform Jersey? Would he elaborate and say what he thinks the importance of consensus building is as Chair of Scrutiny Liaison?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

I will not comment on who is insulted by what, that is obviously a personal matter whether someone feels that way. But the Scrutiny Liaison Committee’s rules say that we try to reach decisions by consensus and we should always be trying to do that. It is not a forum for driving forward a political agenda so whatever your manifesto commitments, or what have you, are that should not feature in that. It is about making sure that you are fulfilling your constitutional role in our machinery of government. I guess we may sometimes have to have difficult conversations on that if we disagree on what the right way to objectively scrutinise a piece of work is but you should always be trying to do so on a consensus basis. In all the years that I have served on Scrutiny committees in the past, I cannot recall an instance where we had to take something to a vote because we were not able to, as a panel, reach a decision on something. Maybe it has happened but I cannot recall it because it would have been that rare.

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

In the last term some Scrutiny Panels struggled to get members and where they had members some members failed to turn up when requested or when scheduled. How would the candidate deal with issues such as this? How would he encourage Members to come on to Scrutiny and learn from that process?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

A question which is on something I can relate to at the moment because of course all of our panels are seeking members, and I know some of have had some wide-reaching discussions on that to try to get people to join those panels. Firstly, hopefully as the President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, I would want to speak with enthusiasm and excitement about the work that Scrutiny does. I think there are some really good pieces of work that are going to come before us which, if you care about your role as a States Member and your duty to represent your constituents, are things that you should want to get stuck in with. One of the first things that we will have to look at will be the mini-Budget, that is due to come in September; Public Services Ombudsman work, that is going to be quite exciting too, I would have thought; and then when the Government Plan hits I am sure we will all want to get involved in that and have a strong say on it. But as well as that, I think the comments I made before about professional development for Members who do not end up in the Executive but end up taking roles in Scrutiny is important. I think that Members ought to feel like if they are taking roles in Scrutiny that they will get support to be able to fulfil their obligations there, that if there are things that they are unsure of or uncomfortable with because they do not feel they have the expertise and skills on, to feel like there is some sort of pathway in Scrutiny to help them get those skills and refer to any training or anything like that, so they feel that they can do a good job there.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are there any more questions for Deputy Mézec? If not, that brings this period of questions to an end. I invite Deputy Mézec to leave the Chamber and Deputy Scott to be brought back into the meeting.

[10:00]

3.2 Deputy M. Scott of St. Brelade:

I have the personal capabilities and aptitude to carry out this role in an impartial, professional and informed manner. The Scrutiny Liaison Committee co-ordinates the important work of the Public Accounts Committee, Scrutiny Panels and review panels to avoid overlap while aiming to review all aspects of the work of the Council of Ministers. It oversees the prioritisation and allocation of resources to the P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee) and the Scrutiny and review panels and acts as a communication channel between them and the Council of Ministers. It keeps codes of practice and of engagement under review. It has an important role to play in overseeing that Government works for the public interest and delivers. Its President is a key point of contact in these matters. It is not a requirement that the President be the Chair of a particular Scrutiny panel, nor has it always been the case. For example, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has served in the role. It currently is proposed that under the new legislation for the Jersey Public Appointments Commission to replace the current Jersey Appointments Commission, the President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee will appoint the individual responsible for overseeing the recruitment process of the new commission’s Chair. A concern expressed by the Democratic Accountability and Governance Sub-Committee in a report published earlier this year is that the role of President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee is undermined when it is seen, particularly by the media, as Jersey’s equivalent to the leader of the official opposition. The Scrutiny function needs to transcend personal and party politics. Objectivity and impartiality are essential. I learned how leadership is about support and united purpose as a partner and director of a large commercial law practice. Meeting challenging deadlines to complete a large volume of transactions require me to advise and support a diversity of colleagues and to overcome and resolve any differences without taking matters personally. I had to develop objectivity, the ability to ask the right questions and identify good evidence and to analyse complex matters speedily. It involved regular consultation and flexibility with the big picture always in mind. My former service as an independent member of the Public Accounts Committee has informed me how its work could better unify the work of the Scrutiny Panels, a matter on which I hope my colleague, Deputy Feltham, will agree. My work as a former member of the Statistics Users Group has made me aware of the performance measures being developed by Government, which the Scrutiny Liaison Committee will need to consider too. My position as an independent is unique in the current makeup of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, an opportunity to advance constitutional best practice, to help counter an imbalance in the Scrutiny Liaison Committee’s current political composition. It is hardly the fault of the Reform Party that they dominate the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. Three of the Scrutiny and P.A.C. chairs held by their members were unopposed, with a fourth Chair won by a single vote. This gives them an advantage when the committee comes to appoint its vice-Chair. However, it also gives rise to a conflict, anticipated in a report by constitutional experts commissioned by the Privileges and Procedures Committee and presented to the States Assembly in October of last year. The report made recommendations how the States Assembly’s rules might be adapted to deal with the development of party politics and made this observation. If parties in Jersey form along traditional lines, that is to advance a particular programme, they are likely to seek avenues for promoting their programme in various parliamentary contexts. One of these is of committees and Scrutiny Panels. They may also wish to use these fora to present themselves to the Jersey electorate as a credible Government or Government in wating. The States is therefore likely to come under pressure to provide opportunities for parties to advance their policy goals and electoral profile by committee and panel membership and a high-profile role of Chair. Although the report did not make a specific recommendation regarding the President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, it suggested with respect to the allocation of chairs of committees and with respect to the rules of other British Parliaments a relatively well-trodden path of amending Standing Orders so there was regard to the balance of political groups and of elected Members representing no political group in the States. Unfortunately the competition of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee already contravenes this representative principle with 4 of its 6 members now being Reform members and one being the States Assembly’s sole Progress Party member. In contrast only 10 out of 49 States Members are members of the Reform Party with 36 - I now understand 37 - States Members unaffiliated to a political party committed to advance a particular programme. The former P.P.C., chaired by a Reform member, left the task of considering implementation of the report’s recommendations to the new P.P.C. Its report in May of this year on recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures nevertheless referred to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association benchmark that the legislature’s assignment of committee members on each committee shall include both majority and minority party members and reflect the political composition of the legislature. There is a compelling argument for having an independent preside over the committee to counterbalance the compromise of best constitutional practice. Although with respect to the word “preside”, I prefer to think of working with and supporting other committee members to identify the flaws and pitfalls in government policy as it evolves. We can harness the different passions of the members of the S.L.C., mindful that many political values of its members are shared with Ministers while exploring how they all slot into a bigger picture. The latest Fiscal Policy Panel report has set a tone the Scrutiny Liaison Committee also needs to explore, while setting aside ideological beliefs. It needs to be guided by the simple question of how this new Government is going to deliver while also being prepared to consider what the report itself may have overlooked. My candidacy offers a leadership that will be consultative and collaborative, focusing on holding the Council of Ministers to account on behalf of a public who is likely to prefer we avoid tribalism, and work together to address urgent and immediate issues as a team. I hope the above will satisfy you of my suitability for President of the Committee and would appreciate the support of States Members for my appointment to this role.

3.2.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I think there was a bad line there. First of all, did the candidate say that she would be collaborative or combative? I did not hear what came across.

Deputy M. Scott:

The word was “collaborative”.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Thank you for clarifying. First of all, I am thinking it is lucky that of the 4 parties represented in this Assembly and the other political grouping called Better Way, it is lucky that not more of their members got elected otherwise nobody seemingly would be able to do any scrutiny work or Chair any of those panels. But does the candidate agree that you do not need to be a member of a political party if you want to misuse the Scrutiny Liaison Committee for political gains, and that an independent is quite capable of doing that if he or she wishes to? That actually this is about integrity of States Members more generally rather than just trying to single out one particular political party of the current 4 that exist.

Deputy M. Scott:

I agree integrity is a really important quality for all States Members to have and not just the President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. I am not commenting on the integrity of any particular individual. What I have pointed out is that there is a perception of conflict, which needs to be addressed, and that my appointment as President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee will help to address that.

3.2.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

The supplementary really is to ask whether she can give an example, bearing in mind that Reform Jersey has been in existence since 2014, and our members have always done Scrutiny work in that time on various panels, can she give an example of any time that Reform Jersey has used the scrutiny process to be political, bearing in mind we have lots of other avenues in which to be political overtly if we want to?

Deputy M. Scott:

I am not aware of any particular examples and nor am I suggesting that Reform would abuse its position. However, it has a dominant position. However, there are constitutional principles that are basically being compromised even now by the makeup of the committee. I cannot change that and neither can Reform change that. What I also will point out in terms of my own professional ethics is I had to pass an exam in this, in order to become an English lawyer. In fact I do respect that Reform are very kind of hot on the subject of conflicts. They pointed out that it is right for landlords to be voting in the States on matters that concern them. I do not believe that this principle is anything unusual in terms of saying that when it comes to conflicts they need to be managed well and they need to be seen to be managed well.

3.2.3 Deputy R. J. Ward of St. Helier Central:

You mentioned in your speech that you had to transcend party and personal politics, can I ask the candidate what action she would take to transcend her own personal politics and perhaps give us an overview of what they are?

Deputy M. Scott:

My personal politics were set out in my manifesto for the last election and also I did stand on a platform called how.je, which offered solutions to problems in a non-partisan way without any particular ideological kind of colouring, just simply looking at what is the actual problem and how might this be solved. In terms of my personal politics, I have described myself as a centrist but, to be honest, I do not really think of myself as political, I just see problems that need solutions.

3.2.4 Deputy R.J. Ward:

Can I ask the perceived conflicts that you have, where beyond, I think, a misinterpreted report, where has that come from in your short experience in the Assembly? Because I think some clarity around that would be good for myself, for example, who has chaired the panel for 4 years and did not see any of those conflicts in my chairing of that panel.

[10:15]

Deputy M. Scott:

I am confused because the Deputy referred to the conflict that I have. Could he please clarify?

Deputy R.J. Ward:

No, you said there was a perceived conflict; I wonder where your perception comes from. Was your perception from yourself, from other Members, or purely from the report that you have interpreted in a particular way?

Deputy M. Scott:

The report articulated the conflict, so I believe that is the actual perception, is it not? I just find this …

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sorry, the line is very bad, I do apologise. I am another COVID sufferer, so I am sure you can understand where I am coming from. I am sorry, Sir, I should be talking through the Chair. It is very strange when you are on a computer. May I ask the Member just to repeat that last bit?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, will you please repeat your last answer, Deputy Scott?

Deputy M. Scott:

The Deputy has my sympathy for being a member of the COVID club.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Yes.

Deputy M. Scott:

The perception; you talked about a perception, that was a perception that was described …

The Deputy Bailiff:

Through the Chair, you are to refer to each other in the third party, Deputy Ward and ...

Deputy M. Scott:

Very good. The Deputy referred to a perception. I believe he was referring to a section of the report that was commissioned by the Privileges and Procedures Committee that referred to why most British legislators ensure that Scrutiny has a representative proportion of political parties in its makeup. I described what the perceived conflict is that that set-up is trying to address. At the end of the day, when you talk about a perception compared to the actual reality, we can liken it to having landlords in the States Assembly voting on their own things in which they are interested. You might say that the landlord is acting in a public interest and is showing an element of detachment and it is just coincidental whether it is in their interests or not. Ideally you just would not, and certainly from the corporate world in which I have been trained, one would avoid that conflict altogether.

3.2.5 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier Central:

I would like to address the issue of perceived conflict because I have striven might and main for 20 years in this Assembly to demonstrate that political beliefs do not have to overlap with the evidence you find in Scrutiny, time and time and time again. I feel somewhat sullied to think …

The Deputy Bailiff:

You must come to a question, this sounds like a speech, Deputy.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Yes, Sir, I will do. I feel somewhat sullied about the implication that somehow I have failed to do that. Does the applicant consider that on such an important thing as the sale of Jersey Telecom, me and the Minister for Treasury and Resources of the time, Senator Le Sueur, managed to agree, having started from completely polar-opposite positions, the way forward on the sale of certainly an important thing like J.T. (Jersey Telecom)? Does the candidate accept that that demonstrates the way in which Scrutiny can avoid conflict?

Deputy M. Scott:

I am confused by this question but before I ask the Deputy to articulate it in a way that I might understand it better, I do wish to stress that I am not … I think it is unfortunate if anybody takes personally a matter of a description in terms of conflict management. As I have said, I have not made any accusations that people do lack integrity, however, standard conflict of interest management, as evidenced in various legislatures, do seek to remove that perception ... well the ability to have that conflict. But, please, I would invite the Deputy to explain what he is saying in the context of Jersey Telecom.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

I sought to find the biggest topic that I have studied where I believe that we managed to avoid perceived conflict of interest and have a successful outcome to both Minister and Scrutiny that conditions had been met that allowed what happened in the end, that a correct decision was made.

3.2.6 Deputy C. Curtis:

Does the Deputy consider that it is acceptable practice to issue press releases about Scrutiny Liaison Committee meetings without informing the other members? If so, would she continue this practice into the future?

Deputy M. Scott:

If elected President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee and if I were issuing press releases on behalf of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee, then of course I would be consulting with the Committee. I am aware that a press release was issued by me and give a positive intent because I do believe that it is important that the public have the opportunity to express views to States Members. If this was regarded as an inappropriate action on the part of the other members of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee I apologise to them.

3.2.7 Deputy R.J. Ward:

To go back to the press release, it was reported in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) that the candidate: “Is standing in order to counter what was described as discomfort felt by States Members and members of the public about the inference of Reform Jersey.” Can the candidate explain what she thinks this influence is, given that Reform Jersey does not form any part of the Executive?

Deputy M. Scott:

Yes, first of all I should say that the press report, which used the word “counter” and in fact I have sought corrections from the J.E.P. and they have said that they will be on-printing those. But in terms of the discomfort that has been expressed by some States Members and the public to me, it is simply in this context of what is standard procedure in terms of not having a Scrutiny Panel dominated by any particular political party.

3.2.8 Deputy R.J. Ward:

It is not to counter. Is it not the case that the statements made about whatever word other than counter, that the candidate is subsequently taking a set position which is not neutral, thus contradicting the very argument that is being developed? I am very confused by that because it does in the end question the integrity of Members. Would the Member not accept that?

Deputy M. Scott:

I do not accept that because the position is neutral. I have described a constitutional best practice, a principle, which has been not only stated in a report commissioned by the Privileges and Procedures Committee, headed by a former Reform member but also by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and also referred to in another report by the P.P.C.

3.2.9 The Connétable of St. Mary:

In the interests of balance, could I ask the same question or a similar question to that raised with the other candidate? In the previous administration the S.L.C. formed a number of review panels, admittedly many of them caused by the COVID pandemic. Would the candidate advise the Assembly of her general views of the need or otherwise for such review panels? If so, to what extent would she contemplate the use of members of Scrutiny outside S.L.C. to assist in those reviews?

Deputy M. Scott:

That is certainly something that I would discuss with the other members of the S.L.C. It is in the interests, I think, in the public for Scrutiny to look at specific issues and projects and, therefore, there is a wealth of panels. I suspect one of the things that we will need to discuss and decide upon will be in terms of the next proposals in respect of the hospital once they evolve because, again, the public will wish to know that they are scrutinised.

3.2.10 Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade:

Would the candidate like to reflect on the recommendations of the C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association), particularly the sentence which says: “The legislature’s assignment of committee members on each committee shall include both majority and minority party Members and reflect the political composition of the legislature.”? In the light of the fact that there is no majority party in the Assembly and reflects on perhaps the view that those recommendations might have been made in the expectation that political parties developed in a slightly different way in the election, most recent election, to the way they did develop and, therefore, perhaps comment on whether they are, as I say, applicable in the current circumstances following the most recent election.

Deputy M. Scott:

The Deputy has raised an interesting question. I will first point out that the C.P.A. ... we were talking about benchmarks that were formed by the C.P.A. We have got an interesting situation in Jersey. In the last election one might say that party politics was rejected to some degree, except in the case of the Reform Party. I still believe that the democratic principles apply and that one does need to think about the constitutional best practice. There probably is a much larger conversation that needs to be had about how the States Assembly are set up at the moment because I am aware that some Members are not particularly happy with the Ministerial system; they regard it as divisive. There is a much bigger issue about how we can all work together without being particularly dominated by any particular political party, if that is the case.

3.2.11 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

I would ask the candidate, as I did the previous one, in the last term Scrutiny Chairs had considerable difficulty filling places on their panels and, when they did, ensuring their attendance. How would the candidate propose to manage that in this term?

Deputy M. Scott:

I believe we will have to see how this goes but I am not yet aware of who is going to be serving on panels, other than my own. But I think that there needs to be quite clearly a bit more education within the States Assembly itself about the role unfairly of Scrutiny. We will need to decide as a committee if we find that we have members of Scrutiny Panels who are not showing up to do the work, then of course we will need to make a decision. I believe that might be that there has to be a much bigger conversation about the future role of Scrutiny that the Privileges and Procedures Committee need to consider.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you, Deputy. Are there any further questions for Deputy Scott? That brings that period of questions to an end and I invite Deputy Mézec to come back to the Chamber.

[10:30]

Both candidates have answered questions and spoken, we now move to the vote. As there are 2 candidates, the electronic voting system shall be used. Any Member wishing to vote for Deputy Mézec should press the pour button. Any Member wishing to vote for Deputy Scott should press the contre button. Members retain the option of abstaining in the usual way. Those who are attending the meeting remotely may either vote pour or contre or identify the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. There are still Members trying to vote in the chat, so I will not close the voting just yet. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the votes count as follows: Deputy Mézec 29, Deputy Scott 15 and 4 abstentions.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South: 29	Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade: 15	Abstain: 4
Connétable of St. Helier	Connétable of St. Brelade	Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable of Trinity	Connétable of St. Mary	Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of St. Peter	Deputy C.F. Labey	Deputy S.G. Luce
Connétable of St. John	Deputy K.F. Morel	Deputy K.L. Moore
Connétable of St. Clement	Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of Grouville	Deputy H.M. Miles
Connétable of St. Ouen	Deputy M.R. Scott
Connétable of St. Saviour	Deputy R.E. Binet
Deputy G.P. Southern	Deputy M.E. Millar
Deputy M. Tadier	Deputy A. Howell
Deputy L.M.C. Doublet	Deputy T.J.A. Binet
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat	Deputy M.R. Ferey
Deputy S.M. Ahier	Deputy B. Ward
Deputy R.J. Ward	Deputy K.M. Wilson
Deputy C.S. Alves	Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson
Deputy I. Gardiner
Deputy I.J. Gorst
Deputy L.J. Farnham
Deputy S.Y. Mézec
Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf
Deputy T.A. Coles
Deputy B.B.de S.V.M. Porée
Deputy J. Renouf
Deputy C.D. Curtis
Deputy L.V. Feltham
Deputy H.L. Jeune
Deputy R.S. Kovacs
Deputy A.F. Curtis
Deputy M.B. Andrews

Accordingly, Deputy Mézec is appointed President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. [Approbation]

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Can I just thank Members very much for their support?

4. Appointment of the Members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee

The Deputy Bailiff:

I move to appointment of members of the Privileges and Procedures Committee in accordance with Standing Order 122. The Assembly must first appoint 3 elected Members who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers and I would like the Chair to make her nomination.

Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

For the Privileges and Procedures Committee I would like to nominate Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Alves and the Constable of St. Brelade.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville and St. Martin:

I would like to nominate Deputy Lyndon Farnham.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Thank you.

Deputy B. Porée of St. Helier South:

I would like to nominate Deputy Tadier.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, there are 5 nominations: Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Alves, the Connétable of St. Brelade, Deputy Farnham and Deputy Tadier. In accordance with Standing Order 122, we now go to a secret ballot and I invite the usher and the Assistant Greffier to distribute ballot papers.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sir, may I just check on this process, are we voting for individuals or the whole slate?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You are writing down the names of one, 2 or 3 Members you wish to appoint to P.P.C.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

We are emailing the Deputy Greffier?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, exactly. For those who are in the chat you are sending a private email, as it were, to the Deputy Greffier. Members should write the name of the Member or Members they wish to appoint to P.P.C. Members may cast one, 2 or 3 votes. Yes, Members are receiving one piece of paper only upon which they may write one, 2 or 3 names.

Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement:

Sir, could you repeat the names?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, Deputy Le Hegarat, Deputy Alves, the Connétable of St. Brelade, Deputy Farnham and Deputy Tadier. If all Members have had the opportunity of writing down their selections, I invite the usher and the Assistant Greffier to collect the ballot papers.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sir, can it just be confirmed that emails have been received because sometimes it can be a bit slow? Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, I am going to invite the Greffier to confirm that he has received emails from the absent Members and that he will either do that by emailing you in return or letting me know and I will confirm that was the case.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Have all Members in the Chamber had the opportunity of casting their votes and placed them in a ballot box? Good. The Viscount and the Assistant Greffier, I think, have retired in order to undertake the count. But I can assure Members returning remotely that in a moment we will confirm that we have received your nominations, unless we have done so already.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

We have only got the emails have not been received. Is it worth us sending a direct chat message to the Assistant Greffier?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes. One option is to chat directly to the Greffier, if you know what I mean by that, I am not sure I do, but he is prepared to accept a direct chat message to him.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sir, I have sent both but I do not know if they have been received.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much. I can see over his shoulder he has received something but I cannot see what it says.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

That is it done, Sir, thank you. Thanks to the Assistant Greffier as well, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you.

[10:45]

Members, we were going to press on with the Chair of P.P.C.’s nominations for Ministers and Assistant Ministers but owing to the technical difficulty of ensuring we receive votes from those Members who are absent, I think we will need to pause until we receive all the votes and I can then announce the results, and then we will proceed with the next series of nominations. I formally close the voting. I can announce the outcome of the ballot for membership of P.P.C.; first Deputy Alves with 29 votes, second Deputy Le Hegarat with 28 votes, there is a tie for third place, the Connétable of St. Brelade and Deputy Farnham with 25 votes, Deputy Tadier received 18 votes and there is one spoilt paper because someone voted for 4 candidates. Deputy Le Hegarat and Deputy Alves have both been elected and we now move on to a second ballot for the third place in relation to that result. Members must now vote for the Connétable of St. Brelade or Deputy Farnham only in order to identify who has secured the third place on P.P.C.

Deputy L.J. Farnham of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter:

Sir, I presume we could use the pour or contre button for this one?

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is a secret ballot, so it would not be very secret. [Laughter]

Deputy M. Tadier:

What are we electing for again, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff:

This is the membership of P.P.C. Members are invited to cast one vote, either for the Connétable of St. Brelade or Deputy Farnham and the same applies to those joining in the chat.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Sir, I have sent a chat message again to the Assistant Greffier because it seemed to be a lot quicker than emails, I hope that is okay.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, and again we will ensure that those have been received.

Deputy R.J. Ward:

I just saw his message, sorry, Sir, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

No, that is fine. Deputy, there is a point you want to raise.

Deputy L.J. Farnham:

I will let Deputy Millar raise it.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You had a question, Deputy Millar.

Deputy L.J. Farnham:

We were just wondering, Sir, how it could be 25 votes each when there is only 49 Members.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Everyone has more than one vote.

Deputy L.J. Farnham:

Sir, yes. That is why I will not be applying for the P.A.C. committee. [Laughter]

The Deputy Bailiff:

I had the same thought myself but I was too polite to say it. If all Members have had the chance to complete the ballot paper in the Chamber, those can now be collected by the Assistant Greffier and the usher. Thank you very much.

[11:00]

I invite the Viscount and the Assistant Greffier to undertake the count. I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I have the results of the second ballot, the votes cast were as follows: Deputy Farnham 27 votes, the Connétable of St. Brelade 20 votes, and one abstention. Accordingly, I can announce that Deputy Farnham joins Deputy Le Hegarat and Deputy Alves as members of P.P.C. [Approbation] In accordance with Standing Order 1225, I invite the Chair of P.P.C. to nominate a further 2 members who are Ministers or Assistant Ministers for the committee.

The Connétable of St. Martin:

I have discussed this with the Chief Minister, and Deputy Stephenson and Deputy Ferey were very keen to become members of P.P.C. and I am, therefore, very pleased to nominate them.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded]

The Connétable of St. Martin:

Sorry, it is Deputy Stephenson and Deputy Ferey.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare Deputy Stephenson and Deputy Ferey are appointed members of P.P.C. [Approbation] According to Standing Order 1229 I invite the Chair of P.P.C. to nominate a further member from the Scrutiny Liaison Committee.

The Connétable of St. Martin:

The President of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee has only just been appointed this morning and he would like to consult with the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. Would it be possible to delay this appointment, please, bearing in mind he has only just been appointed?

The Deputy Bailiff:

You make a proposition that that particular appointment is deferred.

The Connétable of St. Martin:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on that proposition that this particular vote is deferred so that the Chair can consult with the new Chair of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee? Can I assume that is adopted on a standing vote? Thank you very much.

5. Appointment of the elected Members of the Public Accounts Committee

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move to appointments to members of the Public Accounts Committee. Standing Order 124 deals with unelected members and requires notice to be given 14 days before the meeting of such persons nominated, which cannot happen today. But the Assembly can today appoint elected members of P.A.C. and I invite, under Standing Order 123, Deputy Feltham to make her nominations.

Deputy L. Feltham of St. Helier Central (Chair, Public Accounts Committee):

I would like to nominate Deputy Andrews and Deputy Coles. I would also like to take the opportunity to say that in due course I would like to appoint a further States Member on to the committee, so should nobody else be nominated today I would seek to be doing that in the future.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Are the nominations of Deputy Andrews and Deputy Coles seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? There are no other nominations, I declare that Deputy Andrews and Deputy Coles are appointed members of P.A.C. [Approbation]

6. Appointment of the Members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

In accordance with Standing Order 125 the Assembly is due to elect members to the Corporate Services Panel. In accordance with Article 125 I invite the chair, Deputy Mézec, to indicate the number of members he is seeking for the panel.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec (Chair, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):

At this stage 3 in total but at some point in the near future I would want to expand that if there are other Members who have an interest in serving.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you. I invite Deputy Mézec to make your nominations.

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

The 2 nominations I am in a position to make today are for Deputy Max Andrews and for Deputy Carina Alves.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Andrews and Deputy Alves, are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare that Deputy Andrews and Deputy Alves have been appointed as members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

7. Appointment of the Members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

In accordance with Standing Order 125, the Assembly is due to elect members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125 I invite the chair, Deputy Scott, to indicate the number members she is seeking for the panel.

Deputy M. Scott (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

Sir, at this stage I am seeking 2 more members and I hope to appoint more down the line.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Which Members are you nominating?

Deputy M. Scott:

I am nominating Deputy Andrews and Deputy Kovacs.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare that Deputy Andrews and Deputy Kovacs are appointed as members of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

8. Appointment of the Members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move to appointment of members of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in accordance with Standing Order 125. Can I invite the chair, Deputy Catherine Curtis, to indicate the number of members she is seeking for the panel?

Deputy C. Curtis (Chair, Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

I would like to nominate more but at the moment I have one person to nominate and that is Deputy Porée.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Thank you very much. Is the nomination of Deputy Porée seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare Deputy Porée appointed as a member of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

9. Appointment of members of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move to appointment of members of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with the Standing Orders I invite the chair, Deputy Luce, to indicate the number of members he is seeking for the panel.

Deputy S.G. Luce (Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel):

I would like to nominate 3 Members of the States.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Luce, who are your nominations?

Deputy S.G. Luce:

I would like to nominate the Constable of St. Brelade, Deputy Rob Ward and Deputy Le Hegarat.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare that the Connétable of St. Brelade, Deputy Rob Ward and Deputy Le Hegarat are appointed members of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

10. Appointment of members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel

The Deputy Bailiff:

We now move to appointment of members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. In accordance with Standing Order 125 I invite the chair, Deputy Southern, to indicate the number of members he is seeking for the panel.

Deputy G.P. Southern (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel):

I am seeking 2 members for my panel for the moment but, like others in Scrutiny, I would leave it open to more volunteers as soon as I can.

[11:15]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Could you make your nominations, please?

Deputy G.P. Southern:

In reverse order, Deputy Barbara Ward, Deputy Beatriz Porée and Deputy Philip Bailhache.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are the nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare Deputy Barbara Ward, Deputy Porée and Deputy Bailhache appointed members of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel. [Approbation]

11. Appointment of members of the Planning Committee

The Deputy Bailiff:

In accordance with Standing Order 125A the Assembly is due to appoint members of the Planning Committee and I invite the chair, the Connétable of Trinity, to indicate the number of members he is seeking for the Planning Committee.

Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity (Chair, Planning Committee):

I am seeking to nominate 9 members.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I invite the Chair to make his nominations, perhaps slowly so I can write them all down.

The Connétable of Trinity:

I would like to nominate Deputy Steve Luce as the vice-chair, Deputy Mary Le Hegarat, the Constable of St. Clement, the Constable of St. Saviour, Deputy Tom Coles, the Constable of St. Lawrence, Deputy Andy Howell, the Constable of St. Ouen and Deputy Alex Curtis.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded]

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf of St. Saviour:

May I just ask for a point of order, please? That is a big panel, I do not object to it, but just for clarity would you please advise as to what the quorum of the Planning Panel will be? Because that is a big number and it would be just helpful to try to understand …

The Connétable of Trinity:

It is 3. Three members form a quorum.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, the number of members under Standing Order 125A is not less than 3 and not more than 9, so a total of 10 and the quorum, you have heard from the Connétable, is 3.

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Would it be in order to ask the process of ensuring that there is a balance of the 3 when they sit because it is an important panel? Is it appropriate to ask that?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well there is no facility in Standing Orders to quiz the proposer but what you have said has been heard.

Deputy M. Tadier:

It could be a point of order but it is a question of procedure. We are not appointing a vice-Chair of the panel today, are we, even though that was indicated? That is done by the panel presumably.

The Connétable of Trinity:

Yes, I apologise for that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

That is correct, Deputy.

Deputy M. Tadier:

I think it was helpful but just technically we are not doing that. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

You are correct. Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations I declare Deputy Luce, Deputy Le Hegarat, the Connétable of St. Clement, the Connétable of St. Saviour, Deputy Coles, the Connétable of St. Lawrence, Deputy Howell, the Connétable of St. Ouen and Deputy Alex Curtis appointed members of the Planning Committee.

12. Appointment of 2 States Commissioners of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission

The Deputy Bailiff:

In accordance with Standing Order 126 the Assembly is due to appoint 2 States Commissioners of the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission and I invite the chair, Deputy Labey, to make her nominations.

Deputy C.F. Labey (Chair, Jersey Overseas Aid Commission):

I would like to nominate the Constable of Trinity and Deputy Steve Ahier.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I can announce the Connétable of Trinity and Deputy Ahier have been elected. [Approbation]

13. Appointment of 2 members of the States Employment Board

The Deputy Bailiff:

I now move to appointment of 2 members of the States Employment Board. In accordance with the Employment of the States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005 the Assembly must appoint 2 members of the States Employment Board. I invite the Chair, the Chief Minister, to make her nominations for Members who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers.

Deputy K.L. Moore (Chair, States Employment Board):

I would like to nominate Deputy Bailhache and Deputy Barbara Ward.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Are those nominations seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, I declare that Deputy Bailhache and Deputy Barbara Ward are appointed members of the States Employment Board. [Approbation]

14. Election of a member and an associate member to represent the States of Jersey on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly

The Deputy Bailiff:

I now move to election of a member and an associate member to represent the States of Jersey on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I invite nominations from the Assembly for firstly the election of a member of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Are there any nominations?

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter:

I propose Deputy Farnham.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

Deputy K.L. Moore:

Yes, I would like to propose the Constable of St. Mary and the Constable of St. Helier.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, I think we start with the member and then we go on to the associate member. So who is your nominee for the member?

Deputy K.L. Moore:

Apologies, that would be the Constable of St. Mary.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Nominated so far we have Deputy Farnham and the Connétable of St. Mary. Was your nomination seconded, Chief Minister? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? Accordingly, we now move to a secret ballot and I invite the ushers to distribute ballot papers and Members should write the name of the Member who they wish to elect to the Parliamentary Association, either Deputy Farnham or the Connétable of St. Mary. Members present in the chat can vote in the same way as they voted in the last secret ballot. If all Members have had the opportunity of placing their preferred candidate’s name on the ballot paper, may I ask the usher and the Assistant Greffier to collect the ballot papers in the currently empty boxes? I invite those on the chat to cast their votes directly by message to the Deputy Greffier. If all Members have given their ballot paper to the Greffier or the usher, I invite them to retire and count the votes with the Viscount and in the chat I close the voting. I just want to inform Members that there are some representatives of Digital Jersey who have been given consent to take some photographs of the Chamber and they are about to do so.

[11:30]

I can announce the results of the ballot for membership of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly: Deputy Farnham 21 votes; Connétable of St. Mary 26 votes and 2 abstentions. Accordingly, I declare that the Connétable of St. Mary has been elected as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. [Approbation] I now invite nominations for election as an associate member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly.

Deputy K.L. Moore:

I would like to nominate the Constable of St. Helier.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations?

Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

Could I nominate Deputy Rob Ward for this, please?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that nomination seconded? [Seconded] Are there any other nominations? So we now proceed with a secret ballot. I invite the ushers to distribute ballot papers and Members should write the name of the Member they wish to elect as an associate member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, either the Connétable of St. Helier or Deputy Rob Ward. I invite Members present remotely to cast their votes in the usual way appropriate to a secret ballot. If all Members have had the opportunity of completing their ballot papers, I invite the usher and Assistant Greffier to collect the ballot papers. If all votes have now been collected, I invite the Viscount and the Assistant Greffier to undertake the count. I can announce the results for the ballot for election of an associate member to the British-Irish Parliamentary Association are as follows: Connétable of St. Helier 24 votes; Deputy Rob Ward 25 votes. I therefore declare Deputy Rob Ward has been elected as an associate member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly.

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

The Deputy Bailiff:

That concludes public business for this meeting. I invite the Chair of P.P.C. to propose the arrangements for future public business.

15. The Connétable of St. Martin (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

There are 2 matters currently listed for the Assembly’s meeting in September as per the Order Paper and it is Deputy Mézec’s minimum wage and Deputy Gorst’s reinstatement of Senators. However, we have not yet reached the lodging deadlines for the meeting and so other propositions are likely to be added to the list for that meeting over the summer recess. I remind Members that Wednesday to Friday are all identified as continuation days in States weeks. At the moment it is difficult to predict how many days will be needed in September although Members should at least expect to sit on both Tuesday and Wednesday. I would like to thank the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Greffe, Deputy Greffier and all the staff who support this Assembly and I wish you all a very healthy, good and productive summer and the next States meeting is on 13th September. Thank you. [Approbation]

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is public business seconded as proposed? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposed public business? Yes, Deputy Tadier. Or, Deputy Gorst, you were first, were you? You are very polite.

15.1 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

Always polite. I just wanted to put Members on notice, as the Chief Minister said in her statement before she was elected as Chief Minister, that one of her priorities would be to produce an exceptional mini-Budget.

[11:45]

Ministers are working on producing that exceptional mini-Budget and we hope to make the lodging deadline to have it debated at the first States sitting in September. Thank you.

15.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

I wanted to let Members know that after the summer recess there will be an election for the President of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie and subsequently for a committee. I am currently the President, I will be seeking re-election, but of course that is open to be contested which I would welcome as well but would not welcome it too much. But nonetheless that is the democratic process. Moreover, we do need Members to fill that who are French-speaking and I welcome some French-speakers back to the Assembly; I know we have also lost some. So if Members do wish some more information, contact the Greffe. Congratulations, by the way, to the new Deputy Greffier. [Approbation] I know that was thoroughly deserved but he has also provided excellent support to the committee up until now and I hope he will continue with that even in his elevated status. So have a think over the summer. The Alliance Française do also provide French lessons or French conversation classes for people who either want to learn, ameliorate or to brush up on their French to keep it current. It will be great to have a strong contingent for the A.P.F. (Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie) which I think should have parity in some ways with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association because our links with France will be very important as a parliament and an Assembly. Thank you.

15.3 Deputy C.F. Labey:

Yes, in a similar vein, in September we will have the C.P.A. A.G.M. (annual general meeting) and I currently Chair the Jersey branch of that and I will be up for election. I am quite willing to put myself forward again but obviously that is up to the Assembly. But we also need members to that so I would welcome any expressions of interest. Well I think it goes through another process, it is a proper nomination, proposed and seconded through the Greffe, and I think the Greffe will be sending out forms nearer to time. So it is just to allow Members to have a think about that over the summer, whether they could contribute, because there is a lot to be gained from joining. Thank you.

15.4 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Without wanting to be in any way a deflationary Member after Deputy Tadier said inflationary remarks, may I just test the mood of the Assembly in relation to the matter that Deputy Gorst has laid in relation to Senators, mindful that this is a major, almost totemic issue which was raised. I just wonder, in the light of the Deputy’s comments about the extraordinary or mini-Budget, whether or not there is some sense, mindful that there is unlikely to be major propositions after the 13th, whether or not it might be appropriate to take the matter of the Senators at a later sitting rather than that of 13th September given that there is going to be important work of Government. P.P.C. are going to need to conclude Comité des Connétables, et cetera, and that it might be more sensible in the round to take that at a future meeting, not the 13th.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do you make a proposition that that matter be deferred to a later meeting now?

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I wanted to ask whether or not the Chair of P.P.C. or the Government might observe it. It is a neutral proposal but I am happy to make it, if necessary. I think it would be sensible particularly in the light of the mini-Budget.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Chair of P.P.C., do you want to respond to this before a proposition is made?

The Connétable of St. Martin:

It is quite a prescriptive proposition. I am happy to take it at the first meeting but if the Assembly would rather wait because of the mini-Budget I am equally open to that.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, do you make a proposition, Deputy Ozouf?

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

Yes, I would say so. I think the remarks of the Chair of P.P.C. indicates that she has got a committee and she might want to take a view with P.P.C. about when they are going to report so I maintain the proposition, if I may.

The Deputy Bailiff:

What is the precise proposition, that it be deferred until the next meeting?

Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

It be deferred to the next orderly meeting of the States.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on that proposition that the proposition lodged by Deputy Gorst, reinstatement of the Senators, be deferred to the next meeting?

15.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

It is curious that we have a third party, if I can call him that, proposing this when we do not know what the Government want to do. So the movers of any mini-Budget are the Government, the new Government, and of course we have got the other party sitting next to me whose proposition it is. The principle usually is that when you lodge something for the requisite amount of time, then you debate it, and it is normally courteous for the mover of the proposition, whether we agree with it or not, lets us think about that over the summer, gets to debate it there and then. I have not heard anything yet that would make me want to move it.

15.4.2 Deputy K.F. Morel:

Yes, I do not quite understand this proposition. Ordinarily if somebody wants something to be moved they would speak to the proposer themselves and ask if they would think to defer it, so I genuinely do not understand the point of this proposition. If I did I might then be able to vote for it but, given my lack of understanding, I do not feel I can support this proposition.

15.4.3 The Connétable of St. Brelade:

Speaking with the hat of the Comité des Connétables, the body for which I speak has not had a chance to consider the proposition as such and I would be in favour of it being deferred until the next sitting.

15.4.4 Deputy I.J. Gorst:

I would take the view that perhaps the best course of action is rather than seek to defer it now is for a conversation to be had with the Chair of P.P.C. once her committee has sat. If they are of the view that they would like further time … I do understand that there is some sense that some Members may wish to see the full report of the election observers. I take the view that I think we know what the election observers are going to say on this matter so we do not need to wait for that. But if from a work perspective the P.P.C. newly-elected panel would seek and ask me to defer it then of course I would consider that appropriately. From a workload perspective, I do not see that it is a problem taking the 2 at the same States sitting. Islanders were clear on what they wanted this Assembly to get to grips with and Reform have rightly lambasted me because they said that Islanders wanted to get to grips with the cost-of-living crisis. The Government is doing that and will have a package of measures that helps to do that at the same sitting. They also in my district, I accept it is not universally the view right across the Island, wished us also to consider the reintroduction of the Island-wide mandate. We know these things take time and I think an opportunity to signal to the public that we heard their voice on this matter the first sitting is not unhelpful but I think perhaps a conversation between myself and the Chair of P.P.C. might be the first and best port of call.

15.4.5 Deputy R.J. Ward:

I find myself in a position of having some sympathy with Deputy Ozouf’s idea here. I think the issue for me is we do not know the nature of the mini-Budget, the extent of it, what it might include, what detail it may need, indeed, whether there will be any amendments to it, et cetera, et cetera, because there may well be when anything like this is developed. Until we know that, I hope that there is not the minimum lodging period for that so Members have a significant amount of time to look at it if the plan is to come to the first sitting. If that is the case, looking at the proposition, it is not as urgent as is suggested because it looks to make changes long term, so not debating that in the first Assembly will not have the impact that I think some may consider. So moving that on to give a full run, the mini-Budget, which we obviously do not know how long that will be or how large or what extent that will be, I think is something we should consider. It is a shame that this was not talked about before the sitting between Deputy Gorst and Deputy Ozouf because they could have perhaps sorted that beforehand but I just thought I would make those points.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Does any other Member wish to speak on this proposition?

15.4.6 Deputy P.F.C. Ozouf:

I am happy to withdraw the proposal because I have heard the necessary safeguards are in place that the committees are going to meet. I did not have an opportunity to speak to those but we did not know who the members of P.P.C., et cetera, were going to be. So I withdraw the proposition and will let the normal checks and balances take place.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well you need the leave of the Assembly to do so. Are Members content that the Deputy be voted to withdraw his proposal? Those in favour please show. Any against? Thank you very much, the proposition is withdrawn. Does any Member wish to speak before we adjourn?

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:

Can I propose the adjournment?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Yes, well that concludes public business and the States does stand adjourned. Before I formally adjourn, which I will, can I draw to the attention of Members that they should please stay in the Chamber for the new Assembly photograph to be taken? So we will need to reconfigure for that purpose with perhaps Members coming in this direction. I can assure those who are present remotely that they will be digitally inserted …[Laughter]

Deputy R.J. Ward:

Do we get to choose the photo that is used if we are not there and does it have to be ours? [Laughter] That was just the question. Thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff:

I think it has to be yours, yes. So the States stand adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on 13th September 2022.

ADJOURNMENT

[11:56]