States Meeting Transcript - 18/01/2006

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 18th JANUARY 2006

[CONTENTS:

PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION

1. Draft Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200- (P.196/2005) (Continuation of debate)

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville

The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey

Senator F.H. Walker

Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier

Senator S. Syvret

Senator T.J. Le Main

Miss S.C. Nicolle, Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General

Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville

Deputy L.J. Gorst of St. Clement

Senator M.E. Vibert

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour

Senator L. Norman

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier

Deputy R.G. Le Herissier

Senator W. Kinnard

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier

Senator J.L. Perchard

Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier

Connétable T.J. Du Feu of St. Peter

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (Suspension of debate for referral to Scrutiny)

2. Draft Law Revision (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.245/2005)

Senator T.A. Le Sueur

3. Censuses and the development of official statistics for Jersey (P.275/2005) - commencement of debate

Senator F.H. Walker

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains

Deputy J.J. Huet

Deputy C.H. Egre of St. Peter

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en

The Connétable of St. Helier

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Senator J.L. Perchard

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye

Deputy P.N. Troy

Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

PUBLIC BUSINESS - CONTINUED

4. Censuses and the development of official statistics for Jersey(P.275/2006) - debate continued

Deputy R.C. Duhamel

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains

Senator B.E. Shenton

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Deputy G.P. Southern

Deputy L.J. Gorst

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire

Senator M.E. Vibert

Senator S. Syvret

Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour

Senator F.H. Walker

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan

Senator S. Syvret

Senator M.E. Vibert

Deputy G.P. Southern

The Deputy of St. Martin

The Deputy of St. Peter

The Deputy of Grouville

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire

Deputy P.N. Troy

ADJOURNMENT]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - RESUMPTION

1. Draft Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 200- (P.196/2005)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We return now to the main debate on Projet 196. Deputy of St. Ouen, as you were speaking and then you proposed a reference back, do you wish to add to what you said? I think there has been misunderstanding in the past as to whether members can speak again so I am giving you the opportunity now if you wish to add to what you have said because that will be your speech in the main debate.

Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Yes, Sir. I will be relatively brief. First of all, I would like to make it perfectly clear that the whole element and point of my speech was not to judge individuals and their sexuality. It was to highlight the problems that we, as an Island, are facing when it comes to the implementation of the existing law and the concerns that I had regarding the changes. It was nothing more and nothing less. I would like to highlight the fact that, as many of the Members are here today, I am a parent and I had the concerns about bringing up young children. It is that concern that was driving, and still does, the issues that are related to this amendment to the law. I do passionately believe that, whatever the outcome of today's debate, the issues, including attitudes of individuals as spoken about by Senator Ozouf , need to be addressed and I would certainly ask the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to collectively look at the whole range of issues that relate to the sexual practices of our young people on this Island. With that I will finish. Thank you.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement :

I was impressed yesterday with the Deputy of St. Ouen's analysis of the situation and slightly disappointed with the Home Affairs Minister by what I thought was not properly addressed in the alternatives, giving the impression - perhaps I am wrong - that they were not viable alternatives, which of course is not true. Interestingly, Sir, out of the many agencies that she listed I noticed 2 of them were ones that I used to donate to and I stopped donating to them because, in my mind, they had started putting political correctness before the interests of children. It has been my view for some time that hiding behind human rights and political correctness is exactly what the EU relies on and, of course, this is what is behind today's proposition. Mothers lost their husbands in the First World War and their sons in the Second World War defending this country from government by a foreign power and yet here today we seem to be allowing ourselves to be told what to do by an unelected foreign power. It is my absolute belief that the vast majority of the people in Jersey do not agree with the proposition before us today. However, we are told that we have no option on account of our human rights obligation. People who know me will appreciate that I am not easily bullied nor am I given to hypocrisy and I shall therefore be voting against this change but I would like to explain why, Sir. First, to be absolutely clear, this projet is not about homosexuality. It is about sodomy or buggery, whichever particular term one cares to use. I wish to make that distinction, Sir, so that people do not misinterpret what I am about to say. I would also like to make my position clear regarding human rights because, like any other person, I want people's human rights to be respected but, unfortunately, the human rights legislation does not, in my view, deliver. We have seen increasingly it is more concerned about the rights of murderers, rapists and paedophiles than that of ordinary citizens. For example, Sir, we have just recently read that a paedophile has been awarded £6,000 for stress over his court case; others have been employed as teachers in schools. Murderers, now, Sir, must be considered for bail or the Government will apparently face huge compensation claims. It is no wonder that the UK Conservative Party has pledged a commission to review or rescind the Human Rights Act. I also happen to believe in corporal and capital punishment, which the legislation outlaws. I support real human rights but not the human rights legislation that is promoted and the sort which sadly, it seems to me, our Minister of Home Affairs clearly embraces. Today, Sir, we are being asked - or told is probably the more correct phrase - to reduce the age at which consenting adults may sodomise each other from 18 to 16, allegedly for reasons of equality. It is alleged to be discriminatory for heterosexuals to legally

have intercourse from age 16 upwards but not homosexuals where the age is currently 18. Interestingly, Sir, while governments have condoned homosexual sodomy, it remains an offence for heterosexuals. So now we are being asked to permit that too. It does occur to me, Sir, that the way we are going it will soon be compulsory. What next? A minimum age for bestiality, I suppose. Coming to its conclusion, the European Court has made a fundamental mistake, Sir. They are not treating like for like.

Senator W. Kinnard:

I do not wish to interrupt but I think there is a degree of unnecessary offensiveness in the Deputy 's speech and I would rather he toned it down.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

Sodomy is not comparable with vaginal intercourse, Sir. The act of intercourse between a male and a female is a natural process across the animal kingdom and, of course, its purpose is procreation - to ensure survival of the species. Sodomy, Sir, does not achieve that. Anal intercourse is therefore unnatural. The human body was never designed for that purpose. It is also unhealthy, Sir. AIDS is continuing to incubate and be spread via the practice of sodomy; not my words but those of a retired surgeon general of the USA. The Bible Sir - Leviticus 22 - tells that homosexual intercourse is an abomination and I think for very good reason because, if the entire population were to engage in anal instead of vaginal intercourse, mankind would cease to exist within about 100 years. We are being asked to approve several things, Sir: to legalise sodomy between heterosexuals; to lower the age at which consenting homosexuals may sodomise each other; and to allow more than 2 people to be present during these acts. I believe the last line is a clue to what this is all about. In all the time I have been a States Member, Sir, not one 16 or 17 year-old male has asked me to get the law changed so that he can engage in what I believe is commonly called "backdoor activity." Whose human rights are we talking about? Our children, or perhaps middle aged men who are looking for something a little younger. It is not, Sir, for the loving relationship we are so often sold as a sop to these changes but so, as the more-than-2-people amendment suggests, there can be sexual orgies. We already know they take place, Sir. The law would enable men to have even

younger boys for dessert at their dinner parties than they currently do. Like most members of the public, I find that disgusting. I ask, Sir, who is protecting our children these days? With respect to the Dean, I believe there is little leadership from the churches. Some priests lately have not exactly been behaving themselves but, generally, in an attempt to appease everyone, I believe the church pleases no one. Now, today, even Government is turning its back. I am totally amazed; just yesterday members went to church to pray for guidance and now just 24 hours later here we are considering the proposition that condones behaviour contrary to God's teaching. Our children deserve our protection and I am not prepared to abandon them just because some, presumably, atheist in Europe says that we should. My position is very simple: sodomy, whether between homosexuals or heterosexuals, is simply unacceptable and Government should not be condoning it. Thank you.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

As a European atheist, I will wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation. Members will be aware of my concern with human rights. This is yet another aspect where we do need to have equal rights for all members. We need inclusivity for all members of our society whether that be in terms of race, whether that be in terms of gender and, in this case, in terms of sexuality. So, wholeheartedly supporting this piece of legislation, I urge Members to get into the 21st century and support it too.

Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :

In the course of the last week or so since this proposition came to the fore, I have had several calls from parishioners and I  have spoken to  many parishioners and parents.   I must  say that the consensus has been 100 per cent against lowering the age of consent. I have, I may say, received one email, which was generally sent to every Member, supporting it. However, I feel that I should represent my parishioners on this and support their cares and worries about this situation. I have to say that I am also worried about us caving-in to EU bullying. The Assistant Minister spoke earlier in this debate about an international profile but I do not want to see our international profile as being people who bow our heads to every dictate coming out of Europe. I want us to have our own international profile as an Island that will stand against what it thinks is unfair and will stand for what our people in Jersey want. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the people of Jersey do not want this legislation and I, Sir, will most definitely be voting against it. However, there is one point I would like to bring back before I finish. Why were we not given the alternative of raising the age to 18 all round? This is an alternative I think that perhaps most of us would have been able to support and I leave it with the Minister for Home Affairs to perhaps think on that.

The Very Reverend R.F. Key, BA, The Dean of Jersey:

I have asked a question before in this house, Sir. I have not spoken before and, if I am absolutely honest admitting perhaps some degree of cowardice, I wish it had been on another subject but the church's lead has been asked for and I am happy to give it. Let me declare that I did spend 3 years on the Bishop of Oxford's panel on human sexuality which drew people of faith from across the divisions on this subject, both those who take the traditional Christian view, shared by traditional Judaism and Hinduism and Islam, that God's gift of sexuality is for within heterosexual marriage; indeed that marriage is by definition heterosexual, and those who took what Deputy Southern has called a more 21st century approach. One thing we did learn was that we could exchange our views and, at times, use our emotions as well as our intellect but in an atmosphere of dedicated listening and mutual respect. It seems to me that is crucial to our debate today. We do none of those who look to us for leadership any favours if we simply descend to a lower level. I know very well that there will be those Members who will not agree with what I am saying. Nevertheless, I would hope to retain their respect and their friendship, as they will certainly retain mine, when their views do not coincide with my own. As well as God's biblical prescription for sexuality, there is also God's welcoming love for all people, irrespective of sexual orientation. I want to say straight away that there is no place for homophobia. Now, I know that there are those who will use that word the minute somebody says something with which they disagree. It is not, I would contend, Sir, homophobic to say that the scriptures and Christian tradition do not allow for homosexual genital acts as part of God's best plan and purposes. That is not homophobic. It would be homophobic if one denigrated people of a homosexual orientation or those engaged in homosexual practice as somehow less human or less the objects of God's redeeming love. I confess that I was very disappointed with the report. We seem to be being offered, Sir, 3 different reasons - those who have votes - for supporting this proposal. Reason one is social justice. There should be the same age. Reports are given in generalised form. Yesterday the Minister helpfully backed them up with some of the initials of the organisations but there is nothing about the minority report. Now, I was certainly taught if you were putting forward an academic case it was not enough simply to say the generality of research shows that, especially if that is the view you want to take. You had also to martial the arguments that disagreed with your conclusions and show why they are in error. I have looked but I can find nothing of that in this report. If I were a maths teacher I suppose I would say: "I want to see more working". We are also offered in that no great allowance for the fact - it may be unfair but it is a fact - that men and women, boys and girls, simply mature at different ages. The quotes from the European Court admit that that is the case but simply say that they cannot address it in that part of their legislation. It is unfair that my wife will live longer than I will. Nevertheless, it is a fact and I had better get used to it. Secondly, we are offered the reason of marketing that somehow Jersey will be more difficult to market if we do not make this change. I think I am right in saying that India is one of the countries that has a discriminatory so-called age limit. I do not notice that the tourism or other economy of that thriving tiger South Asian state is noticeably affected. Thirdly, we are given the reason that sounds to me as if it comes from a little further south in Europe than the European Court of Human Rights of an offer you cannot refuse. If it is the case, Sir, that what you are being asked to do - what Members are being asked to do - is in effect acquiesce to what, in legal terms, would be a directed verdict that the judge in terms of the Court of Human Rights is saying to us: "You don't have any choice. You must bring in this particular verdict" then I would have wanted to see the best Jersey legal opinion telling Members that as part of the report. It may be that it is there or it may be it was there in documents before I took on this office but I have searched for it and cannot find it. So, Sir, if I did have a vote, and I am quite glad today that I do not, I would be saying: "Where is the research that helps me make my mind up?" I

do not know whether I would be being asked to do this as a matter of social justice, in which case I am unpersuaded. As a matter of marketing, in which case India would say: "That's wrong", or as an offer I cannot refuse, in which case where is the legal opinion that is incontrovertible? Certainly there can be no place, in my view, for the criminalisation of teenagers. I think that is absolutely without question. I would certainly not want to take it as any kind of Christian position that somebody coming to terms with their sexuality, whether strugglingly so or enthusiastically so, should be put in that position. That is not the issue. As we heard yesterday, whether police interest is determined operationally or politically, I cannot see that being very high up anybody's agenda. However, it is surely one of the first duties of any legislature to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. The report does say, and speeches yesterday said, that the most of people's sexuality is fixed by 16. We had that quote about earlier sexual experiences of 15 years 3 months for heterosexuals and 15 years 7 months for homosexuals. Forgive me if I have got the numbers slightly wrong. What about the minority? What about those whose sexuality is still in development. According to the majority research quoted in the report - according to the Court of Human Rights - where is the protection for the minority? I do not see it. We have been told, Sir, that this was not the place - this particular piece of legislation - for that protection. I understand that this has been on the table since September. Where is the package deal that says if the States reduces the age to 16 then, whether the predator is homosexual or heterosexual -, for I entirely endorse what Senator Ozouf said about that yesterday - then it is the predator that will fall foul of the law? It seems to me that it is not beyond the wit of those in the ministerial team to draft such legislation so that we can assure parents that, even if our hands are tied by a higher court, this Assembly has done everything in its power and jurisdiction and mandate to protect the children and young people that they may grow up in safety and security as they explore who they are becoming as they move to adulthood. Just a word, as I close, about alternatives: I think I am right in saying we were told that other alternatives were unworkable. As I drive down what I think is called Five Mile Road, Sir - but you must forgive me if I am not yet local enough, but that lovely road that sweeps down St. Ouens Bay - I am told by the signs that there is a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in place. I, of course, believe I am the only driver who respects that limit. I do not see us having legislation brought to this house that because many people transgress the limit should we not raise it to 60 m.p.h. instead because 40 m.p.h. is plainly unworkable? That simply philosophically will not hold as a way in which you do legislation. I do not think the argument has been made that the alternatives are unworkable. Since the end of the Second World War we have had legislation after legislation across Western Europe in what is called a modernising direction. I need to say, Sir, that the Christian tradition will have nothing to do with being a killjoy. The Song of Songs in the Old Testament has that wonderful line as the bride lies in bed dreaming of her shepherd boy lover: "Oh, that his left hand embraced me; oh, that his right hand fondled me" is the best translation of the Hebrew that I know. God is on the side of sexual expression. He invented it; it is part of his good creation. When will legislatures across Western Europe realise that the result of the last 60 years has been a steady increase in sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies - unwanted pregnancies aborted with all the psychological trauma that involves, and the greater breakdown of family life? Is it not time, Sir, that legislatures across Western Europe realise that we are sacrificing our children on the altar of imagined political correctness? I want to assure Members who would agree with some of what I have said and those Members who would profoundly disagree that they have my respect, my interest and the prayers of all the Christian people of this Island, irrespective of the decision that they make. The church's position was asked for and I have

endeavoured to give it. Thank you for your patience.

Senator F.H. Walker :

I think the House has clearly demonstrated that it shares my view that we have just heard the voice of the church and very welcome it is that we should do so. It is time the voice of the church was heard more frequently and more clearly and I have to say I warmly congratulate and thank the Dean for a very thoughtful and timely contribution. I am rising not to talk in any great detail about the actual issues behind the proposition; that I am happy to leave to the Home Affairs Minister. I will touch on a little bit of that later but I want to focus the House's attention on the constitutional position in which Jersey currently sits. I share many of the concerns that particularly the Dean, and others, have expressed in this debate. I too am very worried indeed about the move to political correctness throughout Europe. We can all see strengths in it; we can all see good in it but I think many of us can see real danger and damage as well so I share many of the Dean's concerns. The issue is that Jersey has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. We have done that; that is a decision of a previous Assembly and we have signed up to it in its entirety. We cannot pick or choose. Now, yes, we have not implemented it yet but we have given our word that we will implement it and taken a decision to that effect. Whether we like it or not, and clearly quite a number of Members do not, we simply cannot pick or choose which parts of the Convention suits us and we want to follow and which part does not suit us and we want to reject. We do not have that ability. We have signed up to the Convention. It is not a question of hiding behind the Convention as Deputy Baudains suggested. It is not a question of being bullied by the EU. That was a decision of this House voluntarily taken. We said we were going to sign up and indeed we did agree to sign up to the Convention. We could go back on that but my strong point is we cannot pick or choose. We either do sign up or we do not and the implications of not signing up are so serious for this Island that I do not believe they could be given any great consideration. Again I agree with the Dean; it would have been so much better in the report of Home Affairs had there been a very clear legal opinion which said: "This is the position that Jersey is in". Nevertheless, the report of Home Affairs gives examples of what almost certainly would happen to Jersey if we did not adopt this proposition. It makes it clear. The Home Affairs Minister said yesterday that if we do not then, as night follows day, it will end up as an issue either in our courts or in the European Court. I would strongly argue that the States of Jersey do not want to be - and should not put themselves - in that position because it will not be a good day for this Assembly. The Solicitor General yesterday was asked whether the UK Government might legislate for us if we did not adopt this proposition and she was absolutely right when she said that the issue about the UK Government and the Crown dependencies is uncertain legally. It is and it always has been and that has worked very much in Jersey's favour now over a very considerable period of time. By convention, the UK Government do not legislate for Jersey and that has been said many times by Ministers both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and that is the last thing they would want to think about; the very last thing they would want to think about. We have clear evidence which has emerged in recent weeks and months, not least on Monday, that the wish of the UK Government is to support us in developing our own international personality; the last thing they would want to do is go back on that. Whatever our personal views about the rights and wrongs of the issue here, let us be under no illusion whatsoever. If we reject this proposition there will be a very, very serious issue between us and the UK Government and I have no doubt at all that all the progress that we have made in recent months and years would be reversed. I do not say that in any threatening position at all. If we do not adopt this proposition, the UK themselves, who have

signed up to it on our behalf in this instance, would be in serious difficulty with their EU partners. Embarrassed goes nothing like describing the difficulties they would be in and, ultimately, because of us they could be kicked out of the whole structure. Now, clearly, they are not going to want to go there and, clearly, it works against our best interest to put them in that position. Now, I do not believe they would try and legislate for us but I do know that the very considerable wins - progress and benefits we as an island have achieved and will continue to achieve, I hope, in the future, which affects every single person in Jersey whatever their age or position - would be reversed and it is a very, very serious issue in that respect. We have, as I have said, signed up to the European Convention and apart from anything else we would be totally inconsistent. We would, in effect, be breaking our word if we did not embrace the Convention in every way, not, as I have suggested, picking and choosing, which is not an issue. If we really want to avoid serious international damage to Jersey, and I mean serious international damage, which would affect everyone in the Island, and if we really want to continue to add to and to strengthen our international personality and our ability to stand up for ourselves internationally and to defend our position in a whole host of ways and if we really want the respect that we believe we are entitled to internationally then, in my view, we have no choice other than to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. As I have said, I understand and indeed sympathise with many of the arguments; the counter- arguments. I thought the Dean's speech, as I have said, was quite superb but I believe we have no choice. It would have helped had we had a very clear statement of the legal constitutional position accompanying this proposition but that is my understanding very much of the position and the advice given to the Home Affairs Minister by the Attorney General. In my view, we have no choice, no realistic choice anyway, other than to comply and compliance means supporting the report and proposition and I strongly urge Members to do so. Before closing, there are major social issues that are being raised in this debate by the Deputy of St. Ouen, by the Dean and by others; there are major social issues which I fully agree we have to address. It is one of the reasons why the criminal justice law did not come or will not be coming to the States on 14th February as planned because the Council of Ministers said they wanted to add to it and look further into it. It is one of the reasons why the Sexual Offenders Law will be coming to the States shortly and that is very important and I hope will meet some of the Dean's concerns and perhaps legitimate criticisms in that respect. We need to look at all the issues raised in this debate very much more thoroughly. The Council of Ministers, of course, is still in its infancy but we do need to look at the issues raised and I assure the House we will look at the issues raised by the Dean. In fact, I will be inviting the Dean and his colleagues - the heads of the other major churches in Jersey - to a major meeting in the very near future where my intention is to look at the social issues of Jersey with somewhat broader than the context we are talking about but very much would include the issues that Members have raised legitimate concerns about today. Nothing is being swept under the carpet; nothing is being ignored. For the sake of Jersey's positioning now, our reputation and to avoid serious - and I do mean serious - damage, given the assurances that I have given and I know will be endorsed by the Home Affairs Minister, I urge the House to accept this proposition. It is not something that I

enjoy saying but we really do have little legitimate or alternative options open to us.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

I would like to ask clarification from the Chief Minister who quotes that we will not comply with the EU on this. Now, I see other countries such as Ireland and Spain have: Ireland, for instance, have for 17 years; Spain for 13 years. Will the Chief Minister please advise me: is it because we are in party with the UK on complying with what they have to do and not what other countries in the EU seem to be able to do?

Senator F.H. Walker :

I agree and understand the position the Housing Minister is coming from. There are inconsistencies and these are clearly outlined in the report. There are inconsistencies in the EU but, yes, we agreed to join the European Convention effectively in this context on the back of the UK and in conjunction with

Senator T.J. Le Main: Is that legal?

Senator F.H. Walker :

Well, my understanding is it is very legal.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I just interpose from the chair for a moment, Chief Minister. Reference was made to the EU but my understanding is this is nothing to do with the EU. This is the European Convention of Human Rights, which is completely different to the EU, and the membership of European Convention of Human Rights is a completely different membership to the EU. For example, Russia and Ukraine and other countries are members so perhaps that can be clarified.

Senator F.H. Walker :

Thank you for that clarification. I hope that answers the Minister's question. I am grateful.

Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

[Aside] All right. Human rights, Sir. We keep hearing about it. I am beginning to think I do not think I want to sign up to this because I understood that human rights was to stop people being tortured, being raped, being starved, abused children, making women second class citizens. This is what I thought we were signing up to on human rights. I never thought that human rights meant that I am not allowed to call an Irishman a mick' or me a crapaud.' That is not human rights; that is stupidity and this is what we have got to at this stage is stupidity. If you open your mouth you will have the hate police sitting on your doorstep. Is this what human rights is for because if it is I do not want to know it? You and I know there is a big difference between males and females. I do not have to go into that. What I am trying to say, as a parent of having both a male and a female - a son and a daughter - I know there is a big difference and it is not just physically; it is mentally. I love the way that people try and tell me that I do not know this: I have had the children, I have brought the children up and I would say the girl is way ahead until about the age of 18. A girl of 16 is mature - a lot more mature - but a boy of 16 there might be one in 1,000 that is but the majority are not. They are not mature at 16. They still need my - or your - protection; their parents' protection. They are not mature at 16 and I defy anybody to tell me that they are. There is an old saying, Sir, and I am going to repeat it. I will not have it dead right, but it is something like: "The worst thing that good people can do is to stand by and do nothing" and that is what we are being asked to do is to stand by and do nothing, to not protect our children. I think it is so hypocritical that you have a group of people that say: "You must allow boys to have sex at 16" and I would say that if you asked the average person: "Do you want your 16 year-old to have an active sex life?" the honest answer from most of you would be: "No" because you do not think they are mature enough. So why are we getting bullied into this? I would suggest that some of you might like to read Sir Ronald Waterhouse's magisterial report. It was about the terrible abuse of a 16 year-old boy and do you know what? At that time, this abuse would have been perfectly legal if the age of consent had been 16, but it was not. At that stage, it was 18 so that made it illegal but that child - and I am calling him a child - would not have been protected. I am not going to change my mind, and I should imagine I will get the anonymous letters I got last time, but I think I have a right to defend

our children and I will not sign up to any human rights that tells me I cannot defend my children. Sir, there is not really much more. I think you will know which way I will be voting so I do not think there are any problems. Thank you very much.

Senator S. Syvret:

Briefly I would just like to touch upon the speech made by the Constable of Grouville . He said a couple of things that were in error, as I think has been clarified. This is not an issue to do with the EU (the European Union) and directives from Brussels. Member states of the Council of Europe, which is an entirely different organisation, are obliged to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and this Assembly voluntarily agreed to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights so it is something that we voluntarily signed up to. It is not something that has been imposed upon us from outside.

The Connétable of Grouville :

I think I said Europe, Sir, not European Union.

Senator S. Syvret:

Well, the point is that it has not been imposed upon us. Adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights is an issue that we voluntarily signed up to. It is a pity the Dean has left the Assembly after using his position in here, a privileged position because he is unelected and unaccountable to anyone in the public

Members: Oh!

Senator S. Syvret: to, in fact, make a speech to attempt to influence this debate when he has no democratic mandate whatsoever to do so and has, in fact, had the insolence to have made that speech and then to have left, not to listen to those of us who may wish to put to him different views, and I think it has probably accelerated the day, I suspect, when the Dean will be removed from the Assembly. I think it is a dangerous situation to start to get into when we begin to mix religion and politics and I think the Dean  [Interruption] The Dean has returned much to the appreciation of the benches from the Connétable s and I am glad that he has returned. I think the United States of America has the right constitution - that there should be a complete separation of the state from all religious considerations and that makes society more equal and more tolerant. The Dean made an extremely clever speech. He went on at some considerable length suggesting that this flaw and perhaps that flaw and perhaps that problem might exist with the proposition itself. I think really his cover was blown when he made reference to having to obey God's word, God's scripture. So I think no matter, frankly, what the proposal actually said, this Dean is going to be against it and oppose it. I think that much was plain but there have been some interesting TV programmes recently about religion and it was pointed out that some of God's word as revealed in the Bible - biblical scripture - advocates tribal slaughter. The stoning of people, killing, all kinds of dreadful things are in the Bible. So which part of the Bible should we choose to adhere to and which part to discount? I would have thought in this day and age most people, at least in our society, who are Christians would have, in essence, followed the tolerant and forgiving word of Christ rather than some of the more dubious parts that are in the Bible. Let us remember that part of society's failure and refusal to accept the true nature of people's sexuality has led to sexual practices - often wholly wrong and wicked sexual practices - being driven underground because we are not supposed to speak about these things. Indeed, let us be frank: the reputation of the Christian church in the matter of child abuse is in shreds after the last few decades. How many senior clerics, even up to the level of a pope, have, in effect, engaged in the cover-up of multiple examples of child abuse by priests? So I really think before we start taking lessons from the church on this matter we really need to consider the facts. As science has proven, people are made the way they are made by genetics. Some people are gay. That is simply a fact and we have to show respect and tolerance to people whatever their sexual orientation, creed, colour, whatever their differences may be - but that is the way people are made. We have to think rationally about these issues otherwise

where does it end if we start being guided by religious thinking? If we start bringing religion into politics, what next? Do we start teaching intelligent design in school science classes? Something that has fortunately just been thrown out by the courts in the United States. Where does it all end? I think one of the things that was most unfortunate about the Dean's speech is that, ultimately, he cites God's word and really there was no disguising his disapproval of homosexuality in what he said and that is unfortunate because the Dean's speech will have encouraged many people in our society to continue with the prejudice that they have. I would like to finish by remembering the school I went to - St. Helier Boys. It was an utterly failed school that would not have been out of place in an inner city - a slum. It was used by the Island's authorities as a dumping ground for derelict, incompetent teachers; half of whom were drunk, the other half were mad. The school was in a state of chaos. Violence [Laughter] Violence and chaos were endemic in the school and it ran that way for many, many years. Many pupils who went to that school would agree with me, and it was regarded as a dumping-ground school because it only served the town housing estates and we did not really matter. We were just going to be digging holes in the road and that kind of thing so our education did not matter. Because the violence was so endemic in that school, anyone

who was remotely different in any way whatsoever - of a different race, different nationality, different accent even - were attacked, routinely beaten up, week in and week out; spat on; had their equipment, school bags, stolen and all of that kind of thing. There were some boys in that school who were clearly gay at the age of 12 or 13 years-old and the rest of the school - those of us who were not gay and afraid - quite shamefully singled them out for particular violent and savage abuse; beatings, kickings, all kinds of things were done. Deputy Le Hérissier says: "Oh, that's just like an English public school". That might be the case [Laughter] That might be the case but that does not make it right and I think if we are going to encourage the acceptance and understanding of the natures of some children we really have to move away from the kind of prejudiced thinking or the kind of thinking that will even encourage those who are prejudice outside this Assembly to attack and criticise and denigrate people who are gay, and gay children. Even if Members are not concerned, recognising the rights of younger people who are gay and indeed affording them, through the decision of this Assembly, the recognition and respect, that might at last begin to remove some of the hostility and difficulty they face in society. There is, as Senator Walker said, a very substantial constitutional problem for the Island if we do not agree to this legislation ourselves. The fact is the law is going to change one way or another. We can do it ourselves; we can face the issue or external forces can bring it about in a much more painful way and in a much more damaging way for the Island. I really think in this year - in the 21st century - we have finally got to lay aside our prejudices and finally recognise the fact that people deserve equal treatment and equal respect.

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Can I ask the question of the SG, please, for some clarification again? I just sent a note over to the Solicitor General asking if countries like Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Ireland were party to this Human Rights legislation which we are supposed to be adhering to and the SG has said that she believes they are, yet they have very varying ages of consent in their legislation and we are being asked to comply with the UK and not with the Human Rights legislation at the age of 16 and I find that very difficult to understand. My question is, if other countries such as I have quoted are in fact Human Rights compliant or signed up to the Human Rights legislation, why have we or why are we obligated today to not have any alternatives but to feel that we have to reduce it to such an age as 16 and not do 18, or 17 like Ireland?

Miss S.C. Nicolle, Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Firstly, the fact that a country has signed up to the EU does not mean it is EU compliant. The European Court of Human Rights deals habitually with complaints by the citizens of all countries which are signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and, on a fairly regular basis, does find that governments are in breach of their obligations. Simply the fact that the countries which are shown on the table are signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights does not mean that what they are doing is Human Rights compliant. It may not be. That does not mean it is not. I am just saying that you cannot take it as an assumption that they are Human Rights compliant. Secondly, just to explain the implications of the way in which the European Convention affects this, there are two rights in question: the first is the right to respect for one's private life which can be interfered with only on specified grounds. Now obviously there has to be some interference in a matter like this because I do not think any state would say that there can be sexual intercourse with children from birth onwards. That would open up too much abuse so it is open to a state to fix a starting age, as it were. The other provision which is relevant is the provision which says that there should be no discrimination in the entitlement of a citizen to the enjoyment of a human right; therefore, what you do in making the particular human right available must be done for all the citizens and that is where the parity of age comes in. As to the necessity, or otherwise, for parity with the United Kingdom, that is not one which I can answer off the cuff, I am afraid. The Chief Minister referred to the terms of joining and that is something I would have to have a look at and I do not have it to hand in this Chamber.

Deputy P.F.V. Le Claire of St. Helier :

May I ask the Solicitor General also to explain to the Assembly the actual qualifying of that requirement of equality because, as I understand it, it is right that there should be an equality to ensure that there is equality. There should be an equal age. But also there are some conditions which apply to these which could exempt those and those are borne in mind when making these decisions. I wonder if the Solicitor General might give us the conditions that can be considered when taking these things into account.

The Solicitor General:

The article, on right to respect for private and family life and the provision which refers to interference by a public authority says: "There should be no interference by public authority with the exercise of this right, except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." That is the provision and it is subject to the established principles that the interference must be proportionate i.e. no more than is necessary for the desired objective. The anti-discrimination provision reads: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national social origin, association with a national minority, property birth or other status." So, obviously the relevant one here would be, it would be discrimination on a ground such as sex.

Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

Could I ask the Solicitor General for just further clarification? Can I just make sure that I have understood this absolutely correctly? The Island is not entitled - am I right, Madam Solicitor General, through you, Sir - to have an unequal age of consent? That is there is case law and if she could just confirm my understanding that there is no alternative. There has to be a universal age of consent.

The Solicitor General:

Yes, because that would be discrimination on the grounds of sex and the Article I have just read out - which is Article 14 - says: "The enjoyments of the rights and freedoms" and the particular right which is in instance here is the article 8 right to respect for one's private life. It says: "The enjoyments of the rights and freedoms shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex." So, if there was a discrimination on the age at which the rights can be enjoyed which was founded on sex, as clearly it would be, then that would be a breach of the prohibition on discrimination.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

Can I ask her a further point of clarification? I do apologise. I think it was trying to get our minds in tune, as it were. If, hypothetically, we were to reject this proposition but to come back later this year and for example be able to vote on increasing the overall age of consent to 17 so that there was no discrimination if it was set at a different age, would that meet the criteria of the legislation, and would that also allow us to avoid damaging our international reputation?

The Solicitor General:

As to whether it would meet the criteria, that would depend upon whether the raising of the age was proportionate. As I said when reading out the provision in Article 8 about interference, the wording is: "There shall be no interference save for" and then it sets out the objectives which will justify interference and I added to that that it is an established principle that the interference must be proportionate. Therefore, the legislation, whatever it was, would have to be proportionate. So,

firstly, to give an answer you would have to have your legislation in draft and look at the objective which underlies this interference and then secondly, is the raising of the age to 17 proportionate? This obviously would have to be considered against the background that there has been an age of 16 for a considerable period for heterosexual intercourse. Therefore it is arguably possible that some aggrieved person who wished to practice heterosexual sex at the age of 16 might object that it is not proportionate to using the words that the "statute interfere with my right up to the age of 17." It cannot be proportionate because for decades - and indeed longer than decades - it has been 16. Now, I do not see how that would be decided but it is an argument which, as a matter of law, could be advanced.

Deputy Bailiff :

Are you going to ask another question of the Solicitor General?

Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

I am, Sir, yes. Can I ask the Solicitor General what evidence the Law Officers Department has that we have to sign up to this immediately, at this moment in time, ahead of Guernsey, Isle of Man and other jurisdictions who have not signed up?

The Solicitor General:

It is not really a question of evidence and it is not a question of signing up. As for signing up, the convention does apply and has done so for a very long time. It cannot be enforced directly in the domestic courts but complaints can be made to the European Court on human rights. So, it is not a question of do we need to sign up. As to the question of evidence, again, it is not a matter of evidence, it is a matter of law; and the legal position is that the European Convention on Human Rights does apply, albeit, as I have said, it cannot be enforced in the domestic courts. It does apply and it has the provisions that I have referred to. Firstly, the right to respect for private life which would include sexual activity. The fact that that can be interfered with on specified grounds, that interference must be proportional and that there must be no discrimination in the enjoyment of a right. So that the position is that if any of those are not complied with the Island is in breach now, as I stand here.

Deputy P.N. Troy :

We are in breach but no sanctions are taken against us for being in breach.

The Solicitor General:

It does not operate by way of sanctions, it operates by way of a complaint to the European Court, so that there is a potential for complaint to be made and if a complaint is made it is dealt with by the court.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Are there any more questions? I have a number of speakers who have caught my eye ahead of those, but if it is a question, Deputy Le Fondré?

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

It is a further question and I do apologise, Sir. Just again for clarification from parents' point of view if one was to - for the sake of argument - trying to increase the age of consent to 17 we might be considered to be interfering with the right of someone, currently at 16 to engage in heterosexual sex. How does that differ - bearing in mind I certainly was not in the House at the time - from the fact that I believe have increased for example the age of the ability to smoke or at least to buy cigarettes from 16 to 17 which is obviously on health grounds, I believe. It is a different degree but is it not the same principle?

The Solicitor General:

So far as interfering with the right to smoke I think one would probably have difficulty in invoking a human right to smoke. This is a health measure. Supposing one were to say that you have a human right to smoke, the answer, I think, would be there is greater information about the ill effects of smoking, a greater awareness of the damage which smoking does, and simply change to health standards and perceptions.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Could the Solicitor General also confirm that while at present we would have to be taken to the European Court to challenge anything that we did, but shortly - and whether that is this year or next year, but highly likely -it will be subject to challenge in our own courts?

The Solicitor General:

It will be subject to challenge in the Royal Court when the Human Rights (Jersey) Law is brought into force by the States.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Can I respectfully ask the Solicitor General her view on the reality of raising the overall level of consent to 17? Would she be able to confirm that you can marry currently at 16, and certainly if the universal age of consent was 17 then certainly marriage would not be, in the heterosexual sense, in the eyes of God as I understand it, able to be consummated. Is this even realistic to have a universal age of consent as 17?

The Solicitor General:

Certainly it is the case that as the legislation stands you can marry at the age of 16 so if there were any changes the changes would have to be comprehensive to take care of that. I mean, as for being realistic I do not want to trespass into the political arena and say what the States can and cannot realistically enact but it would certainly take a lot of changes and far-reaching ones.

The Deputy Bailiff :

A return to speeches then. Deputy Le Herissier and a number of other people before you. Did you want to ask another question of the Solicitor General?

Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour :

If I may, Sir. I wonder if the Solicitor General could address the issue; does the concept of the margin of discretion apply here, or is equality an absolute concept and one has to stay fixed to a certain age?

The Solicitor General:

Equality: the margin of appreciation does not apply on a point like equality. I have read out the wording and it simply says: "The enjoyment shall be secured without discrimination on grounds such as sex". Now,  if you have some other ground which was  not an outlawed ground  for discrimination then that would be different. To use an illustration, if you discriminated on the grounds of mental capacity of individuals to appreciate and to consent, as is in fact the case, mental health patients are subject to protection against exploitation sexually. That is a ground upon which there can be a discrimination because it is not one of the ones that is outlawed.

The Deputy of St. John :

As I stated yesterday I remain concern as to the reputational damage that could be done if we do not accept this proposal and I support what Senator Walker was saying - and Senator Syvret - however I do respect the comments and views of the Dean. Yesterday the Deputy of St. Ouen spoke passionately about his concerns and questioned as to why we had to change when Guernsey and the Isle of Man and other jurisdictions had similar legislation in place. Well, Sir, I would suggest that in this instance it would clearly be Jersey that was taking the lead in modernising its legislation in pursuit of compliance with human rights legislation. Let us take that lead and let others follow, rather than waiting for a higher court to publicly force our hand. The Deputy also spoke of other jurisdictions that had even higher ages of consent and indeed it has been spoken about again today and similar laws that discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think the Assembly should be reminded that our concerns are with the European courts, not those of Madagascar or Australia, who have not signed up to upholding human rights in accordance to European Convention. The Deputy of St. Ouen also suggested that not enough medical evidence had been tabled in support of this case. On this accusation I would like to draw the attention of the House to a BMA report which states that there is no convincing medical reason against reducing the age of consent for male homosexuals to 16. In fact, to do so may yield some positive health benefits. The report goes on to say that if young men are not protected by the law they fear seeking professional advice on sexually transmitted diseases from doctors, teachers, youth workers and social workers,

because in doing so they would be admitting to having committed a crime. Criminalising such consenting individuals in this manner would simply be absurd. I would also like to bring Members' attention to an extract from a briefing from local government authority association in support of the change in the law in the UK. It states that a wealth of anecdotal and survey evidence suggests that the lives of gay teenagers are difficult and often plagued by fear, harassment and bullying. For young gay men to live outside the protection of the law and not to enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual peers strikes at the equality of dignity and respect which the LGA believes should be the right of all citizens of the UK. There is no comprehensive data on the number of gay people in the UK, as no census has ever asked people to define their sexuality. However, the UK government, using anecdotal and other lifestyle research suggests that the gay population of the UK is between 5 and 7 per cent of the population. As Jersey has a similar cultural and demographic makeup to much of the UK, there is every reason to suggest that similar ratios of gay people exist in Jersey. Therefore, as an elected Assembly, we have a duty to represent all groupings in our society fairly and equitably. The Chief Minister has recently spoken about his desire to work with this Assembly to ensure that we help create a fully inclusive society in our Bailiwick. Let us not fall at the first fence when faced with our first test of creating such a society. I would therefore strongly urge members to grasp this opportunity by voting for the proposal and move Jersey forward to where it belongs, not backwards. Thank you, Sir.

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

May I firstly start by saying how very, very welcome the Dean's remarks were. They were like a breath of fresh air in this Assembly. When we ourselves get wrapped up in all our political correctness conventions and human rights and I would like to say, long may his presence stay in this Assembly. The problem is - in my understanding - is the inequality of this law. The fact that we have 2 ages and not one - and quite rightly it should be one age - I would fully go along with consistency and to get rid of this inequality. I come to this debate most certainly not from a prejudiced stance. Some of the speeches I have heard have been quite shocking, I have to say, from a prejudice point of view and I would like to disassociate myself from them because I am going to vote against this because I do not agree that 16 is an appropriate age for either sex. My teenage daughter is absolutely appalled at me. I am a mother that is totally embarrassing for taking this stance, however on my way out this morning I was called by a parishioner who said to me that his son was abused at the age of 16 by a predatory woman. He has gone on in life to never, ever be able to have a proper relationship and it goes on - it perpetuates itself. Those who have been abused then go on Those people then go on later in life to abuse themselves. This is such a difficult one because what about the human rights of that boy? Who is protecting him? In my opinion we are faced with a situation of either criminalising teenagers, and we know it goes on; but in reality when is the last time we saw two 15 year-old teenagers getting prosecuted for having sex? We need some common sense and we need to protect the vulnerable in our society and it is this

predatory element that I am most concerned about. What we will be doing today.. the law is not right now, but two wrongs do not make a right. What we will be doing today is saying: "Yes, it is fine for a 16 year-old and a 45 year-old, whatever sex, whatever sexuality, is okay. That is fine". I cannot go along with that.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

We are being asked to support this proposition to amend the law of sodomy, based on recent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. We also have a ruling from the European Commission within the reports, attached to the propositions, the rulings and decisions of which are a matter of public record. They revolve around the requirement for a state to be non-discriminatory in its treatment of the age of consent, whether for homosexuals or heterosexuals. The Committee therefore considered 3 options, which have been well-rehearsed in this debate. We are then told that the Committee concluded that the first of these was the only feasible option. Unfortunately, Sir, despite the additional information that the Minister provided yesterday, I find the Committee's conclusions to simply be a plump for the easy option without due consideration for the others. Primarily, I believe that we, in this Chamber, have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that our young people are adequately protected by any law that we approve. My fear is that if we were to approve this change today we would leave some of our young people without the current protection that the law provides. The Minister referred briefly yesterday to the abuse of trust' offence. It is worth remembering, Sir, that when the UK government introduced its legislation to lower the age of consent for homosexual activity in England and Wales only from 18 to 16 years, it recognised the need to offer protection and introduce at the same time an abuse of trust' offence within its law. This abuse of trust' offence operates by making it a criminal offence for a person aged 18 or over to engage in any sexual activity with, or directed towards a person under 18, if he/she is in a position of trust in relation to that person. The Minister stated that she felt such protection should not be attached to this proposition. I disagree. We have also been reminded this morning of the Waterhouse Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in North Wales undertaken by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. That report has some interesting things to say about 16 to 18 year-olds and the abuse that they suffered at the hands of predatory homosexual males. It still appears to me that the Committee did not seriously consider the other options which would make the current law human rights compliant and I did hot hear anything yesterday which changes my opinion on this. One of the reasons the Minister gave yesterday - and we have heard more about this this morning - for not raising the age of consent to 17 years for heterosexual activity was the problem of enforcement and yet she went on to say that 50 per cent of homosexual men have their first sexual experience before the age of 16 - surely with the same problem of enforcement. The concept of change to the law if people break it does not seem to me to be a sound one for the basis of legislation. I therefore have no choice with the rejection of the reference back but to recommend that Members reject this proposition. After all, at what age does the law consider a young person to be an adult? For example, one can buy alcohol at 18 years, one can only drive a car at 17 years, one can only vote at the age of 18 years. The UN Convention on the Right of the Child defines childhood as the time before a person reaches the age of 18. Despite again what we have said yesterday there is

conflicting research evidence on whether indeed 16 year-olds are settled in their sexual orientation. Interestingly, I note that the Committee in its proposition only quote those bodies which believe that they are settled with no mention of contradictory research, an example of which is Wellings K and others report, entitled, Sexual Behaviour in Britain which was a national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. Any health implications the proposition dismisses by saying that these can be addressed by health education in the usual way. What we are discussing is not so much an age of consent but I believe an age of protection. It is an age during which we protect our young people. After that we say it is up to them to protect themselves, that education must be their protection and the law should not intervene. Our laws should and must be human right compliant but this is not the only option which would make this law human right compliant. This coupled with the absence of any abuse of trust' clause leave me with no option but to respectfully urge Members to reject this proposition.

Senator M.E. Vibert :

I wholly respect the Dean's right to speak while he is a Member of this Chamber and I think that while he is a Member of this chamber it would be wholly wrong if he did not speak on issues that he feels he should. I think that some Members have missed part of the theme running through his speech which was respect and it is not something that has been demonstrated and shown since his speech in speeches, Sir, in over-enthusiastic foot-stamping and in audible asides. I do not think we are doing ourselves any service, Sir, by behaving in such a manner. If you will allow me a moment, Sir, I will say that no respect was shown by Senator Syvret in his denigration of staff at a local school. I regret very much that Senator Syvret obviously did not enjoy his time at that school. I was a special needs teacher at that school for 7 years. I think Senator Le Main has yet again just demonstrated how to bring the House into disrepute by an aside that is totally out of place when we are discussing a serious issue. [Interruption] May I continue, Sir? I was a special needs teacher at that school for 7 years.

The Deputy Bailiff : Senator Le Main, please be quiet.

Senator M.E. Vibert : If I may continue uninterrupted, Sir. I was a special needs teacher at that school for 7 years. I am pleased to say that many students I knew there, both who I taught special needs and I taught other subjects as well, still come up and talk to me in the street and have thanked me for what happened there. I also know that there were a lot of other dedicated teachers at the school at the time. I agree: and I know from my own school days that school children can be very cruel and there was a lot of taunting when I was at school as well, and I am ashamed of some of the things I took part in, but I think it is wrong to blanketly condemn a group of people who have no right to defend themselves in this Chamber and I wish to act on their behalf in that defence. Having said that, Sir, I would like to return to the matter at issue; a very serious matter, a very emotional matter. It is one I wrestled with, with some difficulty on this issue. I think we all have our own emotional inclinations. By genetic accident - for want of a better word - I happen to be heterosexual, I am married, I am a parent, I have 2 grown-up children. My emotional inclination is against homosexual activities but I hope I recognise that for what it is - which is a prejudice and a wrong prejudice - and I strive against it. I think it is very important we do not let our own emotional inclinations influence the way we represent all the people of this Island and a number of people of this Island will, through their genetic make-up be gay, and they have every right - just as much right as heterosexuals - to our representation in this Chamber. So, I urge members to put their own prejudices aside to recognise their prejudices when considering this issue. I think that it may be valuable to members to know, because we are talking about young people, what we teach in our schools in personal, social and health education to pupils at key stage 4; that is children aged 14 to 16. Among other things pupils of this age are taught to have a sense of their own identity and present themselves confidently in a range of situations, to recognise and manage influences, pressure and sources of health and support. They are also taught the legal and human rights and responsibilities underpinning society and how they relate to citizens including the role and operation of the criminal and civil justice system. They are taught to consider alternatives and long and short term consequences when making decisions about personal health and to use assertiveness skills to counter unhelpful pressures. They are taught the health risks associated with alcohol and drug use, early sexual activity and pregnancy. They are taught how to seek professional advice confidently and find information related to health, to challenge offending behaviour, prejudice, bullying, racism and discrimination assertively and taking the initiative and giving and receiving support, to be able to talk about relationships and feelings, to manage changing relationships using strategies to resolve disagreements peacefully and about statutory and voluntary organisations that support relationships in crisis. In fact, the main objective of sex and relationship education in our

schools is to help and support young people through their physical, emotional and moral development. Pupils are taught to understand human sexuality, to appreciate the value of stable relationships, to learn the reasons for delaying sexual activity, and to recognise the benefits to be gained from such delay. Secondary age pupils - the age we are talking about - are given advice on matters related to sexual health and factual information about safer sex with the aim of encouraging responsible behaviour. I think we teach the right things in our schools. We are teaching children to think for themselves, to be aware, to make their own decisions. When people talk about the age we are talking about here - and some people are saying whether it should be 17 and it is currently 16, some people are saying raise it to 18 - I think Members should be aware that it is nature that dictates when an individual child passes through puberty and becomes sexually aware and wishes to explore that sexuality. It is not dictated by legislation. Legislation simply criminalises the issue. I think the suggestion which some Members appear to be grasping at - because it is a very difficult issue, and it is one I am sure all, in many ways, rather not address - saying, let us turn this down, let us go for 17. Somehow that sounds better. Deputy Labey made the point in her speech that the concern she had - and I am sure it is reflected by all of us - was not about young people. She mentioned herself: when was the last time you heard of two 15 year-olds being up in court for indulging in sexual activity? It was about predatory activity of older people on very young teenagers. I agree that is totally to be abhorred but the place to address that in our criminal justice system is not in this legislation which is about the age of consent, for want of a better word. I believe there is a Sexual Offenders Law coming to this House in the not too distant future and I hope it will address such issues which are serious issues and should be taken seriously. It should not be confused with the issue we are discussing today. Because it is no more satisfactory, in my view, for someone of a mature age to act in a predatory sexual nature to an immature 17 year-old as it is to a 16 year-old. It is the offence practiced that should be banned. The age is not a relevant issue in this case. I think we need to think long and hard about what we are discussing here and I think we need to realise that changing the age of consent does not make sexual activity of any description compulsory. Young people decide for themselves, whatever their sexual persuasion, when they are going to start indulging in sexual activity. Hopefully, the education we give in our schools and the support they get from their parents will make them take a responsible decision, the right decision for themselves. I think it is too easy, Sir, in some occasions to say that some people have contacted us; some people as the Constable of Grouville said, he has had calls from parishioners. He should represent parishioners. I believe our oath says we should act with our conscience. We are representatives not delegates. Many people, and possibly even today; and certainly one of our own Deputies admitted to himself - Deputy Baudains - believes in capital punishment. Never mind the fact that innocent people could be killed by the state in a wrongful conviction, he believes in it. Some time ago this House made a very courageous decision and it was a decision that had the same implications as we are facing today but we were being pressured by the UK to do away with capital punishment in Jersey. It was not a popular decision: it was a right decision. This House on many occasions has made the right decision in the face of popular opinion - popular uninformed opinion - not just on capital punishment: but when it was decided to adopt a social security scheme. Then there were hoards of people in the Square saying it would be

the death of the Jerseyman if we started having pensions and paid for and cared for other people. The States on that occasion made the right decision, not the popular decision. The decision I will make today, will hopefully be the right decision for the right reasons. I understand and respect the pressure we are under to comply with the European Convention. I understand that it could affect our constitutional relationship but the decision I will make will be decision based because I believe discrimination is wrong and despite my own prejudices - which I recognise as such and try to put them aside - it is wrong to discriminate on sexual grounds, on sexual inclination in the age of consent and it is unrealistic and wrong to think that the answer is to put up the age of consent from its current age just to feed those prejudices because that would be simply what it was doing. If we want to stop predatory activity we stop it in another way; we need to be realistic, we need to regard young people as maturing adults who make their own decisions and please examine your consciences everyone, put aside your prejudices and make the right decision. Thank you.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

Could I ask the Minister for Home Affairs to give this Assembly any further reasons than the many ones already given this morning by the Solicitor General, why Jersey cannot consider raising the age of consent, for example to 17. I am a Christian and I personally welcome the Dean's opinion on this important matter and any other issues he wishes to speak on. While human rights are important the social issues raised by the Dean also concern me. As Assistant Minister for Health, however, I feel there may be a case to decriminalise homosexual acts between 16 and 18 year-old men. This would enable these sexually active young men to obtain relevant health advice without fear. I know we had assurance from the Chief Minister but I would like full assurance from the Minister that any potential additional social concerns will be fully addressed if this proposition is adopted. This is essential, in my opinion, if we are required to sign up to lowering

Senator L. Norman:

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy . I am having great difficulty hearing her because of a meeting which is going on behind me.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Can I remind Members, Standing Orders do say that Members should listen and not make a noise while speeches are carrying on. It is important, I think, that we do not need to copy the House of Commons, in that respect.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

Thank you. Can I seek full assurance from the Minister that, as I know the Chief Minister has already spoken about involving members of the church can I seek full assurance that any potential additional social concern will be fully addressed if this proposition is adopted? This is important, in my opinion, if we are required to sign up to lowering the age of consent for homosexuals to 16 and I must add that I also do not support discrimination and I very much support human rights.

Senator L. Norman:

I will not be persuaded and I will not be swayed by these scaremongering comments of the Chief Minister earlier this morning who told us that we have to accept this change in the law. Clearly he does not want to fall out with his new chums at the Department of Constitutional Affairs. This is not the time to allow ourselves to be bullied or coerced by London or Europe to change a law which I happen to believe is mainly right, simply to gain brownie points in London. I do not believe there is any chance whatsoever that the UK would attempt to legislate for us over this issue, certainly not at this time. Not while the UK themselves have different ages for different types of sexual activity in different parts of the Union. Not while the Isle of Man have differentials between conventional and homosexual sex, while the Bailiwick of Guernsey has two separate differentials for the homosexual and conventional sex and we of course are similar to the Isle of Man and at least one European country - a member of the European Union - has differentials. All of those signed up to the convention of human rights. A number of Members, Sir, have mentioned, and we have made much of it - certainly the Chief Minister has made much of it - about developing our own international identity and personality. Something which I support. But part of that to me means that we make our own decisions affecting our own citizens and not be coerced into falling into line with things which are done necessarily in other places which do not suit us. So, we have different ages at which certain activities become permissible or allowable. Ages that we, in this Island, believe to be appropriate, not faceless people in other parts of Europe. We have heard from various members that a 16 year-old cannot buy alcohol in a pub, a 16 year-old can no longer buy tobacco