Why are so many questions asked in the States?

Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him.
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: The truth of the matter is that Mr. Marriot was not suspended-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I did not overule Derek Lewis-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: -I took advice on what I could or could not do-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: -and acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice. I did not overule Derek Lewis-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: -Mr. Marriot would not suspend him-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis-
Paxman: Did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: -in great detail before the House of Commons-
Paxman: I note that you're not answering the question whether you threatened to overule him.
Howard: Well, the important aspect of this which it's very clear to bear in mind-

Why are so many questions asked in the States?

Part of this has to be with the fact that we have politically active members who are not prepared to be silent if they aren't on the Council of Ministers. Back in the 1970s, there were a number of members who rarely asked any questions, or indeed made any speeches. Some of them spent most of the time in the States Chamber asleep.

The Deputy for St Clement was a friend of my parents, and was an extremely nice chap, even if he and his wife did keep the TV on in the background all the time when we visited! But he could have been a Trappist monk, with a vow of silence; for all his time in the States, not once did he ever say anything. He was not alone.

Along with that in the "good old days" were farmers from the Northern Parishes who would enter the States, and suddenly appear as nominee directors on half a dozen companies. I remember a friend of mine Ken Webb commenting on this. "I taught Tom," he said, "and he was as thick as two short planks. Yet now he's been elected, he's suddenly got all these directorships. Fancy that!"

In those days, before the reform of Jersey's company law, accountancy firms would supply their own partners as nominees on hundreds of companies, and charge a suitable directors fee each year - easy money, and Jersey was as much involved at that time as Sark - I know, I worked in accountancy at the time!

So the old days, where States members were less inclined to ask questions, and the business of the States went faster (because some members never spoke or were asleep) is not all a "golden age", even if there were some members like John Le Marquand, a master of oratory, who could deliver long speeches ex tempore, without muddle, rambling or hesitations. Alas, other members were also rambling windbags, including one past member of Policy and Resources (charity forbids me mentioning, ah, ahem, his name). But there were less of them, and more Trappists.

Another reason for asking so many questions is that so many States Ministers evade the question. Here is an example. Deputy Wimberley asks the following:

"Given the evident importance of the Comprehensive Spending Review process can the Minister tell members where they can find the written guidance, authorised by himself and/or agreed by the Council of Ministers and issued to Departments, outlining exactly how they were to approach and carry out their duties under this review?"

Simple enough, you would think. But it gets a non-answer from Senator Ozouf:

The Council of Ministers approved the principles of the Comprehensive Spending Review in late 2009 and in February this year agreed the rules and framework which would deliver longer term financial and business planning, improvements in financial management and control of States spending

After the Council of Ministers approved the parameters of the CSR, it was, and is, for officers to develop a process to achieve the agreed principles and parameters. At the beginning of 2010, a dedicated team of seconded officers was brought together to work with departments to deliver the CSR and developed a toolkit and templates for departments to complete for 2011, 2012 and 2013 targets. The written guidance was sent out by officers and, although both I, as Treasury and Resources Minister, and the Council of Ministers are kept up-to-date with progress, we do not get involved in the process of the CSR.

So the written guidance was sent out, as he mentions, but in rambled on for two paragraphs and he has still not not managed to answer the simple question - where can States members find it (and obviously read it). That's not an answer; it's an evasion, and poor Deputy Wimberley will now have to frame the question differently in the hope that he might get a copy of this written guidance - he doesn't want to know whether the Council of Ministers or Old Uncle Tom Cobley is involved with it; he just wants to get hold of it.

Why are so many questions asked in the States? Clearly, from listening to all the indirect evasions and muddle Ministers give in reply, because their interlocutors still are encouraged with the hope that if they keep asking, like Jeremy Paxman asking Michael Howard, they might just one day get a straight answer.

Paxman: I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude but - I'm sorry - it's a straight yes-or-no question and a straight yes-or-no answer: did you threaten to overule him?
Howard: I discussed the matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him because I was not, er, entitled to instruct him. I was entitled to express my opinion and that is what I did.
Paxman: With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overule him.
Howard: It's dealing with the relevant point which was what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select committee.
Paxman: But with respect you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overule him.
Howard: Well, you see, the question is...