Ministers: step out or stand down?

Monday 04 December 2017

A row is brewing over a key plank in the way Jersey's system of government works - the rule that all Ministers must vote the same way, even if they strongly disagree with doing so.

The issue came to a head during the Budget debate last week, when two of the ministerial team chose to simply step out of the States Chamber, and so miss the crucial vote, rather than going against their ministerial colleagues - even though they strongly disagreed with the 'party' line.

Many believe the rule on 'collective responsibility' is at odds with a system in which each member is elected on the basis of their own views. 

Now one of the island's senior ministers, Senator Lyndon Farnham wants the rule to be scrapped. 

His comments came following a States vote to introduce a controversial new tax that will see large-scale retailers hit with an up to 20% tax. Senator Farnham, the Minister in charge of growing the island’s economy, warned that it could jeopardise a new £20million investment in the sector, but ultimately he didn’t take part in the vote.

COLLECTIVE responsibility, the doctrine enshrined in the ministerial code which requires ministers to toe the official government line – is curtailing proper democratic debate and should be scrapped. https://t.co/HaC1jIROKs pic.twitter.com/QQbGxvEtIi

— Sen. Lyndon Farnham (@lyndonfarnham) December 2, 2017

If he had, he would have been forced to vote in favour of the change due to collective responsibility. 

He told Express: “I tried hard in the Ministerial meetings before the Budget to persuade my colleagues that a 20% rate of corporate tax would be too high, preferring instead to go for a 10%, but I was unsuccessful in doing that… I couldn’t possibly as the Minister responsible for developing the economy and growing our retail sector, I couldn’t vote for it, so I felt I had no other option than to not be there for the vote.”

“I think this is why collective responsibility needs a rethink because I don’t think it’s working. It’s not the first time that members or ministers have absented themselves from votes and I don’t think it will be the last time,” he continued. 

Senator Farnham added that collective responsibility “curtails full debate” on issues where Ministers may find it difficult to speak out against something they are obliged to vote for. He said that this was especially detrimental given that Ministers are often “best placed to make arguments both for and against these issues.”

He is now planning to take the problem to the Chief Minister, who he is hopeful will sympathise or agree with his views. “I’m going to talk to the Chief Minister and we’ll discuss whether it’s an issue we should bring to the States at some time in the future. I think it possibly is more of a question for the new government next year,” he said.

Pictured: Senator Farnham spoke against the Retail Tax in the States Chamber last week, but was not present for a vote on it.

Constable John Refault – himself an Assistant Treasury Minister – was placed in a similarly difficult position this week during a debate regarding the States paying parish rates. He also opted to leave the States Chamber rather than voting. 

“When I go into the States I’m required by my electorate to vote in their best interest, and when I feel something isn’t in their best interest I’m met with a particular challenge. To give you the rates one, for example, I spoke in the main debate and I couldn’t vote for the payment of rates by the States for a number of reasons and I couldn’t also vote against my Minister. It left me in a position where it was best to not be present for that particular item.” 

Nonetheless, he was against the idea of scrapping collective responsibility, which he felt would lead to a more “disorderly government.” 

Constable Refault commented: “You have to have a consensus view that is able to go forward. I think it would be inappropriate to have somebody particularly in the Council that is supported by the majority of the Council then to talk against it…

“It would make the work of government more difficult if you had everyone running off and doing their own thing. I think the whole principle of having a Council of Ministers is a collective view, which they debate and then come to a consensus view that everyone has to be bound by and I don’t really have a problem.”

Pictured: John Refault, Constable of St Peter and Assistant Treasury Minister, said that the Council of Ministers would not operate as efficiently without collective responsibility.

The Constable believes that it would be more appropriate for those who cannot abide by the principles of collective responsibility to leave their posts.

“My personal view there is that if there was an item I just could not live with, I would resign because that for me is the ethical way to do it and something I have done in the past – not in the States. I think if I can’t be party to this then I shall resign."

He later added: “What would happen in private industry, you’d be out of a job fairly quickly. For States Members, we’re ok until the next election!”

In a video on Facebook, Deputy Sam Mézec of Reform Jersey has since criticised the pair, who he dubs "Jersey's Disappearing Politicians."

Referring to Senator Farnham's decision to leave the Chamber during the Retail Tax vote, Deputy Mézec said: "Now what do we take from that? That the Economic Development Minister doesn’t support the economic development policy of his own government? Now if that’s the case, why is he even in the job? In fact, for the Budget debate Senator Farnham had to disappear from the debating chamber when he declared conflicts of interests as he is the director of a local hotel."

Video: Deputy Mézec raised questions about the principle of collective responsibility.

He then added: "The Budget Law document itself says that all Ministers are bound to support the Budget, yet he ran away from the vote. What’s going on behind the scenes? Why are these Ministers running away from their responsibility to their constituents to represent them in the States Chamber and why is the Chief Minister not rebuking them?"