Gorst holds the cards in this ministerial gamble

Until those discussions are had in the House – which they most certainly will be – I can’t honestly say. But, one thing is for certain, all eyes will be on Senator Gorst to see what he has to say on the issue.

You see, since the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report into the States failed bid to buy the Lime Grove site for a new police station broke on Tuesday Senator Gorst has been out of the Island.

It was a detailed report of more than 170 pages and at the crux of it was Senator Ozouf, and not in a good way.

The report said the deal failed because of delays – delays caused by Senator Ozouf. It contained allegations directed at him of bullying, harassment, ignoring the advice of civil servants and of plotting to get rid of a senior civil servant by damaging his professional reputation.

And it is not the first time such allegations have been made – remember the Bill Ogley pay-off saga and the CAG’s report into that?

That report certainly won’t have been far from the mind of Senator Gorst this week when he was weighing up his options of where to go from here.

Senator Ozouf’s comments around the time of his re-election as Treasury Minister at the end of last year that he can and would change under a new Chief Minister are also likely to have been kicking around too.

But, however he chooses to play it, Senator Gorst is almost certainly the one with the deciding hand.

If he asks his Treasury Minister to resign, it will be difficult for Senator Ozouf not to. If he stands by him it seems unlikely that a vote of no confidence from another Member would get through.

Flicking through the order paper for today’s States sitting I was pleasantly surprised to find myself reading a proposition that was simple, to the point and which I totally agreed with. I was even more surprised when I saw that I was nodding in wholehearted approval at a Deputy Trevor Pitman proposal.

Now, it is no secret that at times I have questioned the Deputy’s style in the States and that I have been known to refer to him as a ‘meddling backbencher’.

But, reading that proposal, I thought this time, what the heck. The sun is shining, there’s two bank holidays next week and it’s been a bit of a heavy few days what with the Lime Grove report and all – I’ll do it.

So here goes… This week Members are going to be asked by Deputy Pitman to change the rules and make votes for ministers, Scrutiny panel chairmen, chairmen of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission completely open.

That means that we, the voting public, would get to know who voted for whom when it comes to those elections within the States unlike currently where the votes are taken in secret.

It follows the States approval of another of the Deputy’s proposals last September to make the vote for Chief Minister open. That move was narrowly approved by the House 21 votes to 19 and led to the first open election of a Chief Minister – Senator Ian Gorst – in November.

The latest proposal is therefore a natural step that follows on very nicely from that decision.

It is also sound in its thinking that openness is key for democracy and secrecy is both divisive and damaging.

During the debate for the open vote for Chief Minister many Members raised concerns that to know who voted for whom could make relationships difficult in the Chamber following the vote.

But, as Deputy Pitman rightly points out in his latest offering, that does not appear to have been the case. Instead, the votes were cast, the successful candidate appointed and, six months down the line things

seems to be progressing pretty nicely.

The move to open votes also sits very well with the more open, transparent type of government that Senator Gorst has been so strongly advocating.

But, there is one small fly in the ointment for Deputy Pitman today – the comments lodged by PPC to the proposition that ask for the move to be put off and dealt with as part of what they call a ‘comprehensive review of the machinery of government’.

And, I can see their rationale in wanting to deal with matters such as this all together, to consider them in the round and so on and so forth.

But, this is not a complicated move. It is part of the way there already and does not take much to see that it is the right thing to do. It is also a matter which can be kept relatively separate from other matters of government machinery.

As such, it seems silly to delay it and await a ‘review’ which we keep hearing about but are yet to see any kind of practical conclusions from.

Whether the House will see it like that is another matter, and although more Members are likely to view the proposal in a positive light given the success of the open vote for Chief Minister it could still be a tight one if it makes it to a vote.