States Meeting Transcript - 02/05/2007

STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 2nd MAY 2007

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumed)................................................................5

1. Composition and Election of the States Assembly: proposed reform (P.145/2006).....5

The Bailiff :....................................................................................5

1. Deputy Scott Warr en....................................................................5
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................5 The Bailiff :....................................................................................7 Senator B.E. Shenton:..........................................................................7 The Bailiff :....................................................................................7 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..........................................................................7 Senator B.E. Shenton:..........................................................................7 The Bailiff :....................................................................................7 The Connétable of St. Helier:..................................................................7

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:......................................................8 The Bailiff :....................................................................................8

3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : .........................................................9
4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................10
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................11
6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................11
7. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................12
8. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:........................................................13
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................13
10. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................14
11. Senator L. Norman: ....................................................................15
12. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................16
13. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................17
14. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................17
15. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................19
16. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:...............................19
17. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................20
18. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................22
19. Connétable K.A. Le Brun of St. Mary:..................................................22
20. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................25
21. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................27 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................27 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................28 The Bailiff :...................................................................................30 The Bailiff :...................................................................................31 The Bailiff :...................................................................................33

The Bailiff :...................................................................................35

2. Electoral Reform (P.4/2007)...............................................................36 The Bailiff :...................................................................................36

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................37 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................39
2. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................40
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................42
4. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................42
5. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................43

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................44 The Bailiff :...................................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................44 Electoral Reform (P.4/2007) (continued)...................................................44

6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................44
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................45
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................45

9. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................46
10. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................48
11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................48
12. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................49
13. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:.......................................................50
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................51 The Bailiff :...................................................................................51

3. Draft Prison (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.18/2007)......................53

The Bailiff :...................................................................................53

1. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................53

1. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................57
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................57
3. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................58
4. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................58
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................59
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................60
7. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................60
8. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................60
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................60
10. Senator W. Kinnard:.................................................................60 The Bailiff :...................................................................................63 The Deputy of St. Martin (Chairman of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):....65

2. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................65

3.2.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................65 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................65

4. Tevielka, La Rue de la Haye du Puits, Grouville : proposed deed of arrangement (P.33/2007)...............................................................................66

The Bailiff :...................................................................................66 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ..........................66 4.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources):.............................................................................66 The Bailiff :...................................................................................67

5. Draft Sea Fisheries (Les Minquiers) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.38/2007)...........67

5.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................67

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................67
2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................68
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................68

Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................68 The Bailiff :...................................................................................68

6. Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.39/2007)............................................................69

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):......................69

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................69
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................69
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................69 The Bailiff :...................................................................................70

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................70 Deputy G.P. Southern (Chairman of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):..................70

7. Draft Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Amendment No. 9) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.42/2007)............................................70

The Bailiff :...................................................................................70 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):...................................................70

1. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement (Assistant Minister, Chief Minister's Department):...70
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................71 The Bailiff :...................................................................................71

8. Draft Telecommunications (Public Pensions) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.27/2007) .71

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................72

8.2.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................72 8..2.2Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72

9. Fields 848, 851 and 853, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence : Committee of Inquiry (P.49/2007)72

Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................72 Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:....................................................73 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................73 The Bailiff :...................................................................................74 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.............................................................74

1. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................76
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................77
3. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................78
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis :....................................................................78
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................79
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................79
7. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................79
8. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:..........................................................80
9. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................80
10. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................80 Miss S.C. Nicolle Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..............................................81 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.............................................................81

11. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................81
12. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian :..............................................................82
13. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................83 Deputy R.G. LeHérissier:....................................................................84 The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.............................................................84 The Bailiff :...................................................................................84
14. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................85
15. Deputy P.N. Troy : ......................................................................85
16. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................85 The Bailiff :...................................................................................87 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................88

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................89

10 The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................89

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................89 The Bailiff :...................................................................................89
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................90 Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:..........................................................90
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................90 The Bailiff :...................................................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................90 The Bailiff :...................................................................................90

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS (resumed)

1. Composition and Election of the States Assembly: proposed reform (P.145/2006)

The Bailiff :

Now the debate continues upon the proposition of Senator Shenton, and yesterday evening I last saw Deputy Scott Warr en if she wishes to address the Assembly.

1. Deputy Scott Warr en

Thank you Sir. To be honest I haven't found the speech that I was going to say but I will just it's quite clear that this proposition is now unworkable, sadly, because I would like to see good reforms and good moving on the Machinery of Government to something where we have a picture before us and can make sensible improvements which will please the public in Jersey. Surely, in terms of office, it is not a realistic proposal in my opinion: somebody will protest and none of this could be implemented. The only part which seems to me possible under the circumstances - and obviously most of us would support - is the regulation of election expenses. I think it was a sad afternoon yesterday, we haven't thought these proposals through properly. It looks and it is half-baked. I think that's all I need to say Sir. Thank you.

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

Thank you Sir. I am pleased to disagree with the previous speaker and I want to take Members back to the opening speech by Senator Shenton which I think was one of the best speeches we heard yesterday. It was good on principle, good on history, good on humour and I think, most importantly, it sent out the message that we really cannot afford to leave this debate on the Composition on the States without agreeing to some change to some reform. Some Members will be saying: "Well he would say that wouldn't he" because yesterday the proposal to remove the Connétable s from the States I think received 4 votes and so clearly I am backing Senator Shenton's view that now is not the time to be removing that part of the Trois Etats which has been here for longest and which provides - many would say - the back-bone of the Assembly. But I want to urge Members to look with fresh eyes this morning now that Members are hopefully relaxed from yesterday's trials and well-breakfasted. I want them to look with fresh eyes at this proposition because it does seem to me that on the broad level of principle it seems to deliver all the things that we want, perhaps bar one which I'll come on to. The detail: the devil is in the detail. The detail some Members yesterday tried to do with by amendments, and all those amendments failed and we are now back with the general principles. Trying to get the details right at this stage of the process clearly did not work yesterday. That does not mean we have to throw the whole thing out. There is broad support and Senator Shenton's report - very well argued and well-researched, unlike some of the amendments we looked at yesterday - sets out a clear case for a general election. Now there are of course details that have to be sorted out but if Members look at the report it is quite clear from the opinions of the public that that is what people want and if we ask ourselves and if we talk to constituents and to Islanders in general about politics I think we tend to forget how important being a States Member is to us and how unimportant it is to our friends and relations. In fact, I am sometimes quite surprised. I remember after the last election - which in St. Helier was

uncontested - and someone came up to me and said: "You know, I cannot wait to run against you as Constable of St. Helier." I said: "Well, I am sorry, it happened 2 weeks ago." That is how much that person knew about the position of Constable and the fact that the election was coming up. The Constables are coming forward in due course. If all of this falls away the Constables are determined that at least there will be a general election for Constables. We believe that is achievable and at least those elections will not go by unnoticed in future. But to return to my general point: most people out there are too busy earning a living; they are too busy managing their childcare; if they are businesses they are too busy worrying about the impact of G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax), to be really that much concerned about the finer detail of what we are discussing today. What they are aware of, and what people are aware of in other countries, is the arrival of the

general election, because it arrives with a great deal of publicity; a great deal of public attention. I believe it is really important that we want to increase voter turnout, and I believe that as a matter of general principle a general election is surely the best way to achieve better voter turnout. So the first part of the Senator's proposition does seem to me to be absolutely right. Now, if this principle is approved, Privileges and Procedures at the bottom of the list of propositions have a job of work to do. Maybe some Members think they are going to struggle, given the amendment that they brought forward yesterday, but I think while they are doing the job we have to have confidence that if we give them agreement on that general principle of a general election, they will have to go away and come back with the mechanism, and they will not have long to do it. Indeed, the rest of paragraph 1 follows on from that first point about a general election. The reduction in the number of Senators: I think Senator Shenton is responding to a view which is widely held that we simply have too many States Members for a small jurisdiction. One often has a chance to talk to fellow elected members from other places, and by and large there are few people I have met who seem to think we have about the right number. By and large people are astonished that we have 53 Members for such a small island. I think this is a step in the right direction. Senator Shenton points in his report that this will lead to savings in the costs of running the States, and that is another box that is ticked, I believe, in terms of the public view. The 4-year term of office: again, one speaks to so many people who say: "How can you get anything done in 3 years?" I can see some Deputies nodding. You get in - particularly as a new Deputy - and the first year you are finding your feet and your third year you are thinking about whether you will still have feet to find after the election. So you really have one year in which to do your work. It is not long enough. Very few other jurisdictions that I am aware of have such a short term. It has to make sense. Indeed - and Senator Shenton addresses this in his report - Clothier says a minimum of 4 years is the correct term of office. So why are those who support Clothier not supporting this part of Senator Shenton's proposition? The next proposition that we only choose the Chief Minister from the Island-wide mandate: well, maybe that is more contentious, but Members have already expressed views on that yesterday. Election expenses, it seems to me, is uncontentious. That hopefully will go through, if nothing else does. Then we get to the rather quaint notion that the

Constables should not be paid directly. I am sorry, Sir, I see Members trying to come in..

The Bailiff :

I think they are just indicating that they would like to speak as soon as you have finished.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Thank you very much, Sir. I thought perhaps I was addressing the wrong proposition. To pick up this rather quaint notion that the Constables should not receive monies by virtue of their States office but receive them from the Parish, I do not particularly have a problem with that. I am not sure quite how it fits in with the general points of principle that Senator Shenton is putting in here. I mentioned yesterday in my speech about the level of accountability that Connétable s have, quite distinct from other Ministers, in the sense that their budget is dependent upon the whim - one might say - certainly it is dependent on the approval of a Parish Assembly. It seems to me that if Connétable s had to have the level of their remuneration fixed at an Assembly, I do not think that would hold any terrors for any Constables, so I am minded to support that. Finally, as I said before, the ball is put firmly back in the court of the Privileges and Procedures Committee if these general principles are approved, and I think that is where it belongs. I think Privileges and Procedures should be given another chance to come up with a single package - a single set of measures - which achieves the broad principles that Senator Shenton believes and I believe are wanted by the public of Jersey. So, I would urge Members not to be dismayed by the difficulty we found ourselves in yesterday as we tried to cope with detailed amendments to these principles. I would urge Members to support the principles and to allow Privileges and Procedures to do their work and to come back with some reform proposals.

The Bailiff :

Before I call the next Member to speak, I think it might help Members if I said that I have had an exchange with the proposer of this motion as to how the voting on the proposition might be taken at the end of the day. The ruling which I give is that paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the proposition are part of a whole; they all depend upon the proposal to establish a general election and therefore must be voted on together. But if the proposer wishes to have paragraphs (i) to (iv) and (v) and then (b) voted on separately, it would be in order for him to do so.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

On reflection I think we could vote on (a)(iv) separately as well - that the Chief Minister should only come from the Senatorial benches - because I do not think that is tied-in.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, Senator, but I am afraid that I do not agree with that. Paragraph (iv) says: "From the 2008 general election" and paragraph (a)(i) defines what is meant by general election, so paragraph (iv), I am afraid, as phrased, hangs together with the other 3 preceding sub-paragraphs.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Point of clarification, Sir. Would it be possible for the proposer to withdraw paragraph (a)(i)(4) if he wished to?

The Bailiff :

With the leave of the Assembly I suppose it would be possible, yes.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I would like to withdraw it, if..

The Bailiff :

The matter is before the Assembly at the moment, and procedurally the proposition, or parts of the proposition can be withdrawn with the consent of the Assembly. Senator Shenton has indicated that he wishes to withdraw paragraph (a)(iv); does the Assembly agree to allow paragraph (a)(iv) to be withdrawn?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I think this is just a ridiculous situation. We are just trying to make something on the hoof acceptable and trying to hold on to the straws. I vehemently object to this. Senator Shenton voted in favour of different elements of a proposition yesterday, now we are clutching at straws to try and make something acceptable. It is no good and I vehemently reject and oppose the withdrawal of paragraph (iv). Either we do this properly or not at all. This is not proper.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

The only reason I am asking for (a)(iv) to be perhaps withdrawn at this stage is because the Attorney General made reference to the fact that it may not be human rights compliant. I would prefer to debate it when that is clear, that is all.

The Bailiff :

Senator Shenton, may we be clear which sub-paragraph (iv) you are talking about? I had assumed that it was (a) Roman (iv) - the one dealing with the Chief Minister - and not the preceding sub- paragraph. [Members: Oh!]

The Connétable of St. Helier :

I would like to speak. I vehemently disagree with Senator Ozouf . (a)(iv) - which is that a Chief Minister must be chosen from the Island-wide mandate, the Senators - seems to me to cripple the broad principles that I support in the earlier paragraphs. I think if that were to be withdrawn I would better support the idea of the 4-year term and the concept of a general election, so I think it is right that we do this.

The Bailiff :

We must not have a debate within a debate. I think perhaps it would be simpler if I put the matter to the vote and see whether Members are in agreement that paragraph (iv) may be withdrawn by Senator Shenton.

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

Could I just ask, on the one I had thought you read originally - the (a)(i)(4) - is that compliant to try and lessen Members' terms of office by 3 years or whatever?

The Bailiff :

Can we deal with that in due course, Deputy ? I will ask the Greffier to open the voting, which is for or against the proposal of Senator Shenton that paragraph (iv) be withdrawn.

The Bailiff :

The debate continues on the proposition, paragraph (iv) having been withdrawn. Deputy Power?

3. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Having spent a good deal of time last night thinking about what was said yesterday, it appears that there is very little willingness within this Assembly to change anything. One of the comments that was made was that there was very little public interest in what goes on here; that too few people vote; too many people feel that the States do not communicate properly; and a lot of people do not understand how we work. The 3 arguments that were set out by P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) for chance were: that too few people vote; that there is not a general election; and that there is unbalanced representation in some Parishes, particularly Grouville and St. Peter. We have to sort that out. It is my feedback that the public want a general election. They want a change. When people say or Members say that the public have no interest, that is because we do not do a good job at communicating. Yesterday we heard many, many reasons as to why we cannot change anything, and we ended up in a curmudgeon of a debate. It was overcomplicated and various Members stood up and said: "This will not work and that will not work." We heard of the threat to the mandate of the Senators; that their term of office, by being reduced to 4 years, could threaten them and it might even extinguish their power. We heard of the loss of the Island-wide mandate; that this may not be good for Island politics. We heard that we cannot move the Budget or the Business Plan for various reasons. We heard that the whole States system is so organised that by necessity  it  has  to  be  a  winter  election.   We  have  heard  that  we  have  to  allow  Ministerial government to set-in. There was other negative stuff. We are getting nowhere with this debate, just as we got nowhere with the in committee debate. All of us in this Assembly - and I include myself in this - spend too much time talking about ourselves. The public do not want us to spend this  amount  of  time  talking  about ourselves.   All  this  constant  navel  gazing  - talking  about

ourselves and examining to the nth degree what we can do, what we cannot do, what we can change or what we cannot change - loses us credibility out there. Part of the problem is that the Assembly is unrepresentative, and I have referred previously to Grouville and St. Peter. I come back to something I have said recently; there are not enough women in the States and that is something that we need to address. Deputy de Faye alluded to the fact that there was a poor turnout in the public consultation process organised by P.P.C. in the discussion of reform in the States. I have to say to that, are we surprised? Look at the way we carry on. Look at those that care to vote. Any of us that have stood outside a polling booth at the elections in 2005, it was a cold day, but we all realise and understand the average age profile of the Jersey voter. Without wanting to generalise too much, the average age is somewhere between 40 and 95, according to what I have seen. That was in the Senatorial and the Constables and the Deputies. I say to those that have taken the effort to vote, more power to them. Senator Shenton said yesterday that the majority of those in the finance industry do not vote, and one of the reasons for that is they are not engaged. They have money in the bank, they do not really have big problems, they have a nice home, nice furniture, a nice wife or husband, a couple of nice cars, nice children, nice schools, and they go on a couple of nice holidays a year. We do not engage those for the simple reason that we do not make the work of this Assembly more interesting in a better communicative way, and we do not ask them to participate. We are not going to sort out electoral reform within the life of this Assembly. Once this proposition is put to bed today, let us please not drag it back until after the next election. What I would like to see - and it is part of a wish-list - is over the next 5 years that we have a far more integrated review or reform of the States. I would like, if possible, a general election on a spring Sunday or a summer Sunday. I would like the electorate to be able to vote without having to put thermal underwear on for a winter's day. I would like to see Members reconciled or Members changed to 2 types of States Members. My personal preference would be Constables and Deputies. I do not see any reason why a Deputy cannot have an Island-wide mandate. Somebody said that an overlong ballot paper would be extremely complicated, confusing, or whatever; I do not agree with that. I think with modern technology and modern printing and everything else, that that can be done. There were 56 candidates for Deputies elections in 2005, and 15 for Senators, so that was a combined list of 71. I do not think that within the resources of this Island sorry, I should say that I think within the resources of this Island we can design a system where we vote at Parish level and vote on an Island-wide basis for one type of candidate. I give credit to Senator Shenton and to some of the others for trying to bring some change to the States, but it is obvious there is not a lot of willingness in this Assembly to do this. It is my strong opinion that if we overhaul the electoral process it is going to have to be done over a longer period of time, stage by stage. I pay credit to the Constables for conceding the fact that they are prepared to reduce the terms of those that have just been elected and go for a general election for Constables next year. So I will be supporting part of Senator Shenton's proposition. I am relieved to hear this morning that he has discussed with you, Sir, the ability to subdivide part of the proposition, and I look forward to giving P.P.C. some

mandate in the future to bring it back again, but not before the next election.

4. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I was beginning to despair about this debate, and then I finally found despair. The final nail in the coffin for me was the withdrawal of that paragraph (iv), which took away the only remaining motivation for wishing to stand for a Senator; that you might be later on picked to be Chief Minister. That in itself is not necessarily a good advertisement for somebody who wants to be Chief Minister - maybe we should not be picking that person - but it was the sole remaining motivation for standing as a Senator. What have you got now? You have a general election, equal terms; go and spend 3 times or 10 times as much money on your campaign getting elected Island- wide, and then not have the opportunity to get elected as a Deputy . All you get is chances. All you will be getting is chances. The position of Senator will be brought into total disrepute, if not sooner then certainly later. The only thing I might want to save from this is (a)(v), expenses, and so I will be voting for that if it is brought up separately. But even then, if that goes down.. well, I hope it

does not, because the back-up is in the next proposition that I will be bringing, that is in there as well - in principle - that we should monitor and regulate expenses. But if you do not vote for that one in this one, I will have to withdraw mine from my proposition coming up later, so bear that in mind. Do not be tempted, Sir

The Bailiff :

I think, Deputy , that you will have to withdraw that part of your proposition in any event.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

Yes, indeed, but I will be quite happy to withdraw it if it has been passed, [Laughter]  unhappy if not. So I would urge Members, absolutely vital that we do not throw out the entire baby with the bathwater. Save part (v). If there is, I suppose, one crumb or one lesson to be learnt from this sorry debacle, it is that what Clothier said in December 2000 when presenting his report. He warned us: "Please do not cherry-pick this. It goes together as a whole." What has happened is that we have cherry-picked it. We have Ministerial government, we have Scrutiny, and that is about it. As soon as we start tinkering with the rest of it, we are brought time and time again to the central issues. If you are to have a general election, then you have to have a single status Member of the House, and that cannot be avoided. I believe, to make the system work properly, you also sooner or later have to adopt a party political system to make the whole thing work. It has been designed to work with that. The House nevertheless back in 2002 said it wanted to cherry-pick it - it did not want wholesale change - and rejected Clothier. It looks like today's debate is rejecting Clothier again. Who knows when we will be able to address the issue of the reform of our electoral system and the machinery of government again, if ever. Certainly I suspect we will not be doing it in my lifetime as a Member of the States. I find that a sad, sad thing to live with. Nonetheless, it looks like we are going to throw this out. I do not see that this is a way forward, apart from Article 5. Thank you.

5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

If we go back to history, I seem to recall from my research that in 1948 the Jurats were evicted and replaced with Senators. I merely bring it to the House's attention. Deputy de Faye pointed out a problem with M.O.R.I. yesterday, that M.O.R.I. used a demographic sample. But how many of those polled were actually registered to vote, and voted? It is not clear. To assume the U.K., for example, only has a general election, is a fallacy; there are council elections, parliamentary elections, plus the non-elections for the Regional Assembly, which Clothier thought such a good idea for Jersey. The reports attached to yesterday's and today's propositions are full of the results of M.O.R.I. polls and opinions, but where is the evidence? If we get right back to the basics, do we have any evidence as to how many people are required to run our new system of government? On the Scrutiny side, Members are absolutely up to the eyeballs in work and any significant reduction would lead to retirements due to stress, I would imagine. But there is no basic information. The number of States Members people would like appears to be plucked out of the air. I am glad Deputy Southern mentions Clothier. Any work done by Clothier is nearly 10 years old, so whatever a certain ex-Channel T.V. presenter may say, it is out of date. There does not seem to be any realistic evidence-based work available. It seems to me that P.P.C. should be approaching the machinery of government review like a Scrutiny review; with plenty of hard evidence. I have had a discussion with the Chairman of the Corporate Services Panel as to whether this topic is suitable for scrutiny but, apart from the fact that they are up to the eyes with current reviews, it really should be done by P.P.C. I cannot subscribe to Senator Shenton's proposition because, again, I do not have the evidence: "Yes, we will cut 4 people from the States." Why? What is the rationale for it? What evidence has he that we need only 49 people to run the system of government that we have at the moment? I would like P.P.C. to come back to us with a properly-evidenced report. At this point in time I urge Members to reject this proposition, which does not appear to be based on any solid evidence.

6. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

I have listened with great interest to this debate over the past 2 days as a relative newcomer to the House. I have been both baffled and sometimes amazed at the claims and the counterclaims. The claim that amazes me most is the suggestion from some Members that there has been little or no change since 1947. Sorry, but - as I think Deputy de Faye mentioned yesterday - last year this Assembly went through major change with the advent of Ministerial government. So I would like to remind Members that the change was a result of a massive amount of consultation, over a long period of time. More importantly, the process also involved an independent review, of course chaired by Cecil Clothier. Yet this time we have a relatively newly-elected Senator who, perhaps as a result of his own frustrations with the process adopted by P.P.C., is proposing changes which have been conceived with a minimum of consultation and no independent review, no sharing views with bodies such as maybe C.P.A. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) or Office of Constitutional Affairs or other parliaments. In other words, no evidence, as Deputy Ferguson was suggesting. We need to do far more work on this, because any discussion can or should be had on this important issue. In fact, Sir, I am of the opinion that we should not be debating this at all because, sorry, but turkeys and Christmas do come to mind. I am firmly of the opinion that some form of independent review, i.e. an update of Clothier, should be carried out to complement the work already done by Clothier, particularly in the light that yesterday I learned that Clothier has never been properly debated by this Chamber; something that did amaze me. So I am afraid that in the absence of a debate on Clothier, and the lack of professional independent advice, then I think that Senator Shenton's proposal, although well-intended, is half-baked and not worthy of any further debate at this present time. I would therefore urge Members to reject it. Sir, I also have some grave concerns as to how this whole subject has been brought to this house by P.P.C. It is also half-baked, ill-conceived and lacking completely of any independent overview. If today we fail to reach any conclusion on this matter, I feel, Sir, that P.P.C. should seriously consider their position and Members should decide as to whether they believe that P.P.C. have the credibility and capability of seeing this project through to conclusion. Sir, I support the need for reform, but it must be done in a professional pragmatic manner, not rushed through so soon after the already

major changes that occurred as a result of Ministerial government. Thank you, Sir.

7. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

As I walked home in the rain last night I mused upon the day's activities. Yes, I did feel frustrated, however, I was sure that whatever I was feeling must have paled into insignificance compared to what the Members of P.P.C. must have been feeling. In fact, I imagined them all doing a Reginald Perrin. However, I am delighted to see them here this morning. Sir, I will continue to support the majority of Senator Shenton's proposition, despite recognising that it has about as much chance of being approved as I have of finding a parishioner who thinks the 2002 Island Plan was a good thing. But  let us be sure of what we were saying  yesterday that, other  than the Comité of Connétable s' proposition, we will never agree upon electoral reform that involves changes to the composition of this House. Indeed, it seems to me that some Members were rather disingenuous yesterday, saying that they were all for change, just not this change. Let us consider that statement. We had and have before us small incremental changes which have not found favour with Members. In the past other far-reaching reforms have also been rejected. Some talked about their particular favourite reform, forgetting that any proposition to be approved must have a consensus. I ask what chance does any electoral reform have? We will, therefore, be here after the next election - well, actually, we might not be here - wringing our hands about voter apathy and low electoral turnout. I remain of the belief that we must change. But I am also a realist. We must look, therefore, at what might be achievable. Yesterday Deputy de Faye asked P.P.C. if they had addressed the question: "How do we improve voter turnout?" and I think that that is a good question with which to start to move this issue forward. In fact, I find myself asking if one way forward might be now to look at the Australian approach, where it is compulsory to register to vote and compulsory to attend the polling station on polling day, but not necessarily to vote. Sir, to that end I call upon both P.P.C. and the Council of Ministers to work together, if necessary setting up a working party to investigate

the feasibility of implementing a similar element of compulsion into the Jersey system along with any other measures that could improve voter turnout. While these measures might help stem the tide of voter apathy, I hold on to the hope that one day we will have a general election with 4-year terms of office, yes, with different categories of Member; a Chamber which is modern and fit for purpose but also the best of Jersey. I might have been mocked yesterday, but I repeat the statement to do nothing is not an option. Democracy is a precious thing and we must nurture it. That nurturing requires involvement. That is why voter participation is so important. We have a responsibility to encourage voter participation. Thank you, Sir.

8. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

The House, Sir, will be relieved to know that most of the points I have wanted to raise during this debate have been expressed by others. I only wish to add a few words to address comments I have heard from some Members that they were going to support this proposition simply because if they did not support these changes then there would be no changes at all. When I was elected I was unsure of a great many things, but I was certain from day one that I wanted to be involved in the reform of the composition and election of the States; and that is why I wanted to be on the Privileges and Procedures Committee, the body which has been given that responsibility. I cannot speak for what went before but this Committee is certainly not "procrastinate and postpone". Neither is it "personality and populist". If the issue of reform was so easy it would have been dealt with long ago. If a job is worth doing then it must be worth doing well and I do not believe that Members do ourselves or the electorate justice with a projet which effectively just tweaks at the edges of the current system without following a full and varied research programme and, importantly, giving measured and informed consideration to the data gained from that process. This is what P.P.C. has been doing and it is what I remain committed to do in future. I do not believe that change for the sake of change is usually a good thing. Indeed, in this case it may be change for the worse. The practical difficulties which sections of this proposition would entail are detailed in the report attached to P.P.C.'s amendments, so I do not propose to repeat them here. I would just say, please listen, that there is a good deal of difference between change and reform. In deciding how to vote please consider whether this proposition would come close to giving the electorate what they are looking for or is this really just a quick way to get Members to agree to making some changes - perhaps any changes - which do not result in a dramatic swing on the futures market for sage and onion. It has been said that this could be a first step in incremental reform, but it could also be an excuse not to take reform any further. If this proposition is passed I fear that the public will ultimately feel that they have gone down to the showroom to pick up their shiny new sports car only to find that the shonky salesman has simply stuck wide wheels and a go

faster stripe on an old Allegro. Thank you, Sir. [Laughter]

9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

A very good analogy of what we have been through for the last 2 days. We are trying to do things that it seems impossible at this time for us to do and I will be quite frank with you, I am extremely disappointed and very downhearted that are we, in fact, actually going to achieve anything? I want to move this process forward and my temptation is just to accept this proposition in order that it will concentrate minds on making it workable and then, no doubt, will come back from P.P.C. as: "Well, we cannot do this because of all the things that have been said, but let us try this way round and see how it goes." But I do not like that process because that is just as messy as this one is. I do go for the argument that Clothier is now 10 years old and one must recognise that and there is a whole population moved on and I very much doubt in the short time we have left in this session that we are going to make any constructive changes before 2008. Some of us may be here and some of us may not be there after that. But I think it is important that this House puts things in order that at least we will be going on a positive footing for something to come in the future. One accepts that it is very difficult for politicians looking at things other than affect them directly and there is an argument that there is proper research required. There are too many pitfalls in listening to clinical

research like M.O.R.I., et cetera. There were a lot of people that were indignant when rung up by M.O.R.I., told that they were too old and they had had enough responses from that et cetera, and I think there needs to be a better research. I think there also needs to be some independence attached to this because we are otherwise going to go round and round in circles and I would favour what the Deputy of St. John has suggested: that we revisit and update the Clothier recommendations in this part, but in a different way, in an updated and modernised way. Yes, the 4 years is very attractive. The public do consider - and rightly so - that we really must look at the numbers that sit in this House and, yes, they do not, I would think, appreciate the amount of work that is going on between the Ministries and the Scrutiny Panels. But that is our fault as well because, as I have said before, we have been very bad at educating, supporting and clearly identifying areas that the public need to know to be able to make broad, sound decisions on the information that we give them and our communication through the press and other media. We have got so much media but it concentrates, in the main, on starting off with a negative or who speaks loudest or who speaks longest instead of, maybe, taking some points from the silent majority and the ordinary folk of the Island. But we also need to educate our young people. We need to have positive information programmes that go into the detail. A general election is clearly an obvious winner to most members of the public. The difficulties come when you do not have one elected Member going throughout and the argument is we must have an Island-wide vote. Well, I am sorry, the Prime Minister of the U.K. (United Kingdom) does not have an island-wide' vote but he is still Prime Minister. So, there can be arguments for and against and I am not going to repeat a lot that has come in. I think the only thing that is realistically going to go through today is going to be, I hope, the curbing of election expenses because I think it is important that there is a democratic process. What I will remind Members today is that 3 of us had the privilege to go to Nigeria for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, where 600 delegates from the 53 - it is an incidental number - Commonwealth countries attended. The most important thing that came out of that conference was democracy and there is a country that fights between democracy and dictatorship and fights very hard to retain its democracy. We here take democracy for granted. I do not think we should take it for granted. I think that we should say, yes, we have got to examine ourselves and maybe we need some help and we need someone to do the research and give us a proper co-ordinated report so that we can actually examine it and see if we cannot move this forward and that is what I would hope will happen as a result of this review that we have been going through, as messy as it has been.

Thank you, Sir.

10. Senator F.E. Cohen:

"Not all doth he deem worthy of such reward." That is the beginning of the inscription on the mace presented to the Island in 1663. This was our reward for our efforts to maintain an ancient system throughout one of the greatest attempts at constitutional change faced by the British Islands. This Island has an ancient system of government that has evolved over many centuries, largely through a slow process of minor changes and only occasionally through major changes. There was a major change in 1948 but this was set against the background of significant social unrest. This is often quoted as justification for considering constitutional change presently and I would like to set this into context by setting the tone of what led to the appointment of a Privy Council Committee chaired by the Home Secretary. In August 1945, just after liberation, British intelligence officers reported back to Whitehall in the following terms: "Colonel Cusson is aware of the rather active political rumblings which are making themselves felt in the Channel Islands and the Director of Public Prosecutions is in touch with the Home Secretary on the question of possible action for the reformation of the Island's constitution.  We all feel that something will certainly have to be done as otherwise, serious trouble may develop. So strong is this feeling that the Force Commander told me the other day that he is afraid armed disturbances may take place when he withdraws his forces." We are not in that situation today. We are not in a situation of civil unrest and it is, I believe, misleading to look at the 1948 reforms as a reference. Let us slow down a bit. We have just implemented Ministerial government. I think I was probably the first to suggest a review of Ministerial government after one year in my election manifesto of 2005. So let us complete the review of Ministerial government. Let us then consider what is needed and let us do it in an orderly fashion. If anyone thinks that any of the proposals being debated presently will improve voter turnout, I think they are seriously misguided. I will be voting against. Thank you.

11. Senator L. Norman:

I disagree totally with Deputy Scott Warr en and the Deputy of St. John. This proposition is far from being half-baked. When I first saw it I thought it was a fudge and I told Senator Shenton so at the time. But now, particularly with the removal of paragraph (iv), I do not think it is very much of a fudge at all. I think it is quite an acceptable and sensible proposition, an acceptable and sensible way forward. What is the proposition offering us and offering the Island? It is offering almost a general election, something which I thought there was pretty much a consensus about. It is offering us a 4-year term for all Members, something I thought there was general consensus in the Island and in our in committee debate. It even protects the turkeys by maintaining our 3-tier structure. It keeps Deputies, it keeps Constables and it keeps Senators. None of us are going to lose our jobs so it does those 3 things, all of which are good, and I think a general election is important. A general election is a basic democratic principle. I think it is a basic democratic right. It does not quite meet my criteria of a true general election: which is all Members elected on the same date - yes, it does that; all Members elected for the same term - yes, it does that; and all Members elected on the same basis - no, it does not quite do that. But it is much better than what we have got now when Members are elected on different dates and for different terms and on different bases. It is at least a 70 per cent improvement on what we have got now. So, if you believe in that, if you believe in a 4- year term and you believe in a general election, then clearly the first part of the proposition has got to be acceptable. The date of the general election - that is fine. Therefore, the expiry of the terms of Deputies has to change and the expiry of the term of Constables has to change. That is inevitable if you are going to have a general election. Also the terms of office of Senators have to change if we are going to have everybody elected for 3, 4 or 5 years, whatever we might eventually decide. So, whether it is in 2008 or 2011, the terms of the Senators are going to have to change and 6, or whatever, are going to have to face a decision. Either their terms are reduced or they could have the option, I imagine, of finishing their term in 2011 recognising there will not be an election until 2012 so they will be out in the cold. But at some time if you are going to have everybody elected on the same term, that is going to have to happen. It simply cannot be avoided unless you are going to maintain the current system where Senators have a longer term. The part I had difficulty with originally - why I thought it was a fudge - was reducing the number of Senators and having only the Chief Minister elected from the Senators. Well, that has now gone so the only difficulty I have is asking the question - as we had to during the debate in the last couple of days

and, indeed, during the in committee debate - who is going to stand for Senator? Clearly, no self- respecting Deputy is going to take the risk for no advantage, no additional tie by only having to stand half as often as his Deputies do. The additional costs, which those of us who stood for Senator know what that involves - some more than others - no safety net of being able to run back to the Parishes if we are not successful. So, it is going to be very rare for a sitting Deputy to run for Senatorial office. So, in the main, we will have new Members standing. But that does not matter now, that really does not matter because they are only in for 4 years, the same as the Deputies and the Constables, and it may be well, one of 2 things will happen. It will be a great success, in which case fine, we will keep it, or it will be a great failure and the public will then start to say: "Well, we do not need the Senatorial business any more. Let us just have a few more Deputies and let us have a proper general election, and, as no longer do we have to select the Chief Minister from the Senatorial benches, it really does not matter if every elected Senator every 4 years is brand new." It matters no more. The election expenses, well, I thought we had already agreed this about 4 or 5 times over the last 10 years but that is an obvious one to go along with and (b) for the Constables' expenses and their remuneration should be treated differently is just an absolute nonsense and clearly must be rejected. Some Members seem to think the priority in all this is to

improve voter turnout. Well, that is important, but what surely is much more important is improving democratic accountability and you do that by creating an understandable election process, which Senator Shenton in his proposition almost does. If you create a process which people understand and people recognise is important, then voter turnout will inevitably improve. So, to me, this is now, with the removal of (iv), a perfectly acceptable, sensible way forward and will get now my 100 per cent support.

12. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Quite frankly, we all knew that Privileges and Procedures had been charged with bringing forward proposals. Every single Member knew that it was under review by P.P.C. Why then does one Member decide that he is going to take on the function of P.P.C. all on his own? P.P.C. should have brought these proposals forward and the Deputy of St. John said Privileges and Procedures should be ashamed of themselves for the mess that has been created. It is not Privileges and Procedures that have made a mess; it is Senator Shenton who has made a mess today for this. P.P.C. are not to blame for this debate. Looking at Senator Shenton's proposition, yes, there is a great deal of support for a general election by the public. But I still do, like others, remain concerned about the logistics of it all. Under Senator Shenton's proposals there would be 49 vacant seats. So if we had just 2 candidates standing for every seat that would be 98 candidates. If we had 3 candidates for every seat that would be 147 candidates on the ballot sheets. In St. Brelade, in my district in La Moye - where Deputy Power and myself were elected - there were 7 candidates for the 2 positions; that is 3.5 per seat. If we go and look at all of the other election seats around the Island I am sure that we will be coming out at 2, 2.5, maybe 3 candidates. Then, of course, the Connétable s on a general election, they would not be running the whole election process, so we would then have to bring in a new election process. So, where in Senator Shenton's proposition is his view of how the whole thing will be organised? Well, it is not here and it really needs some thought as to how the general election will be managed. That is why I strongly feel that P.P.C. should still be charged with bringing this forward and bringing with it the proposals under how the system would operate, because we would need to have maybe the Jurats in control solely, or Jurats plus an electoral officer and people appointed to run a general election. So, there is the logistical problem that needs to be addressed and this proposition does not address it at all. It just says: "Let us have a general election and I do not care how it happens but it is going to happen." That is why I feel that we must reject this and send it back so the P.P.C. can come forward with it. If the idea is to have a general election P.P.C. will clearly outline the proposals. I was also looking at the fact that the Senators elected in 2005 will have their terms of office cut. Their terms will be brought forward by 3 years. Well, obviously, if that happens any Senator who is not elected does have a compensation claim if that is the case, because to reduce the term of the 6 Senators you would have to bring legislation forward, we would all vote for it and those Senators would then be deprived of their office for a 3-year term. If they were unsuccessful in the general election I feel they would have a valid legal claim because they had been elected for 6 years and to summarily dismiss them after 3 does mean that they would have a legal claim, in my opinion. So, it would then be best to say that any changes would be better to come in in 2011 and you avoid compensation claims from any Senators not re-elected. So that is another failure of this proposition. Other Members have

mentioned the fact that with everyone on a 4-year term Senator may become a worthless position. Why would you go and stand for Senator on an Island-wide basis, have to spend a much larger amount of money on a campaign to be elected for the same term as everybody else? We Deputies, if we have a safe seat, there is no real reason to switch to Senator at all. Deputy Southern mentioned the common Member. His proposition was defeated today and the basis of that was to get to the Clothier principle that we all have one common Member. I remember that when the Special Committee on the Composition of the States - of which I was a member, headed by Deputy Le Hérissier - brought forward proposals, we were soundly defeated on this and Deputy Le Hérissier and I have always believed in the fact that we really need, at some point, to get to having one common type of Member. But it looks - and I said this at the last debate several years ago -

like it is going to be 30 years, 40 years or any number of amount of years before that is contemplated again and we have seen it defeated today and I think it will not be coming back for some time, as Deputy Southern said. I feel that Members should reject this today and I would implore P.P.C. to come back with a proposition within the next 3 months or so, at the end of the summer, which brings forward their ideal proposals fully structured. Perhaps the Chairman of

P.P.C. might even speak on whether he feels there is a role for his Committee to come back with a proposition that is structured and that brings forward the process in which they see a general election operating and all of those proposals. So, I think the Chairman of P.P.C. should give some view of his own today on how he feels it might operate if this is defeated. I strongly implore him to bring something back within the next 3 to 4 months.

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

The general comment after the period of elections in St. Brelade in 2005 was that the electorate was starting to enjoy elections; and after the third, in which 7 candidates stood for 2 places, they were really on a high. However, it became clear that when a candidate stood for the office of Connétable and Deputy at the same time there were glitches in the system. I have subsequently written to P.P.C. regarding this matter and I presume that they are addressing this in their deliberations. I have to say that the person in question has subsequently become a very useful member of the Honorary Police and for this I am grateful. Senator Ozouf mentioned the mathematical difficulties with a number of 8 Senators, suggesting that 6 is as many as the public can digest in one go. This leads to the question of the need for continuity in membership of the States. Do we need to preserve this element? If not, do we need more than 6 Senators? My impression in 2005 was that the Senatorial elections were somewhat of a farce. I am inclined to question the need for an all- Island mandate. We all have the Island's interests at heart. There is a very good telephone system in place these days; members of the public can easily communicate with all of us electronically, perhaps with the exception of Deputy Huet, I am sure. [Laughter] But generally communications are not a problem these days. So are we hanging to an old parochial issue from which we could easily move? Given that the Parishes tend to organise the elections, I would suggest that differentiating between the Constables' election and the rest, if I may say so, is something that we need to preserve in terms of practical operation. I would also like to comment on the varied election dates for Connétable s which are laid out in the present projet and which are being addressed by the Comité des Connétable s. Now, I wonder how these different dates have arrived. Clearly it is by evolution over the last 500 years and one wonders how they have come to those separate dates. I start to question whether, in fact, those different dates have been dictated by plain practicalities and experience gained over the past 500 years. With regard to item (b) I would ask Members to think back to the reasons why a few years ago Members elected to give themselves a salary. I do not think this is the time to explore this matter in detail, but I would suggest that it is a subject for an independent States remuneration board to look at in the future. I intend, Sir, to abstain from voting on this particular item. Finally, Sir, the whole world is having to embrace moves to a more modern system of voting. I would urge Members not to rush into change for the

sake of it and for the sake of perceived short-term populism. Thank you, Sir.

14. Senator F.H. Walker :

I must admit, and I suspect I am not alone, that I have waxed and waned and I have ebbed and flowed over whether or not I could support parts of Senator Shenton's proposition, because there are parts of it which instinctively I am in favour of and support. At the time when the Clothier Report was published, I did fully support its findings. I argued and, indeed, I was one of those who put a submission to the Clothier Panel that we should dispense with the office of Senator and, effectively with it, the Island-wide mandate and I still believe that ultimately that is the right way to go. But I do not think that is on the cards to be achieved in the foreseeable future. I also argued against the Constables remaining in the States and that just goes to show how wrong you can be by jumping to, perhaps, premature conclusions. Because that would, I believe, have been a most

serious mistake and I was delighted that the amendment yesterday which sought the removal, in effect, of the Connétable s from the States was so heavily defeated. I also supported the principle of a general election, and I still do; and I was in favour of a 4-year term of office and, in principle I still am. But there are very serious issues and problems with the structure proposed by Senator Shenton today. Although I am in favour of a general election in principle, I cannot see how a general election can possibly work effectively when you have 3 categories of politician or candidate standing for office. I believe that it is a logistical nightmare which would do exactly the reverse of what we are trying to achieve, which is to engage the public more effectively in the election process. The hustings just, in my view, do not bear thinking about. The Senatorial hustings are, as the Constable of St. Brelade said just now in his speech, a nightmare already. If you add the numbers and the different categories of office to a hustings series you will have absolute chaos and confusion, in my view, and you cannot introduce, I think, a general election without making other changes first. As I have said before, this is where Guernsey did get it right. Guernsey have introduced a general election but they removed Conseillers from the States first; then the general election was for Deputies. So everyone knew where they stood and it was on the basis of super-constituency structure, which has worked very well for Guernsey. Now, whether it would work well for Jersey is a debatable point, but I do not think, again, that is on the cards in the foreseeable future. Guernsey had a very high turnout in their last election, the highest turnout they have had in many, many years. I do not believe we would achieve that on the back of the structure that Senator Shenton is proposing. I just do not think it would work. That is the problem. I am in favour of general elections. I just do not think this structure with 3 categories of politicians would work at all and other changes are absolutely essential, in my view, before we go down that route. Another issue raised by Senator Norman and others is who would stand for Senator. Now why, in the structure proposed by Senator Shenton, would anyone want to stand for Senator? There is absolutely no advantage in doing so, none whatsoever. Particularly now the part of the proposition which said that the States would only appoint the Chief Minister from the Senatorial benches has gone, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to stand as Senator. Why would anyone - sitting candidate or new candidate - want to take that risk? There is a much higher risk in standing for the office of Senator than there is in standing for the office of Deputy . Any good candidate can really work their constituency very much more effectively than they can, if you like, work the Island or certainly there is a risk that they will not be able to work the Island and appeal to the electorate Island-wide as effectively as they can locally. I just cannot imagine why anyone would want to take that risk. Far simpler to knock on every door in your electoral district, make yourself known, have, of course, the right policies, and you have got a much better chance of getting voted in. I think that the effect of Senator Shenton's proposition would be the death knell of Senators anyway for that very reason because I just do not think the candidates would be coming forward in the numbers we would require to form a Senatorial bench of 8 Members. I think it may not be in 2008 but I suspect that very soon thereafter you would no longer see people prepared to offer themselves for Senators. Now, I do not mind that because, as I said at the beginning, I have always argued in favour of removing Senators from the States anyway, but I do not think you should do it effectively by - and I do not use this word critically - by stealth. But I think that is what would happen. I think if we are going to do it, we should stand up and say that is what we intend to do, be loud and clear about it rather than going about achieving it as a result of the structure presented by Senator Shenton, and that is where I entirely disagree with Senator Norman. Sir, the perception - and I know this worries Members and it worries me - around the Island is that we are making no progress, that we are just not prepared to grasp change, and I know many Members feel: "For heaven's sake, we have got to do something because that is what the public wants." But, of course, as other speakers have said this morning, the reality is we have undergone a huge amount of change in the last couple of years - a huge amount of change - and I think the view is that we should allow a certain limited period to bed that in before we make other fundamental changes. I think that view

is absolutely right and in any case, although the public are calling for reform, the public themselves are completely divided about how we should achieve that, what the reforms should be, when and how we should go about it. So there is no pressure from the public to make a particular change. There is some pressure to change but nobody is very clear about what that change would be and I think - and certainly I think this is very relevant today - no change is far, far better than the wrong change and I honestly think that it is, with all the best of intentions, the wrong change that Senator Shenton is putting before us today. I do want to see a general election, I do want to see a 4-year period of office but, as I have said, essential changes are necessary first before we can go there, in my view. So, with some considerable sadness, I cannot support Senator Shenton's proposition today. It is not the right change and I repeat what I said just now, no change is far, far better than wrong change.

15. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I was very disappointed with yesterday's debate. I spoke to 2 or 3 parishioners last night and universally they said: "Well, that was a waste of time" and it was. I have listened very carefully and I do not think that I will be able to support Senator Shenton's proposition. There is lots of good stuff in it, but there are details that I am not very happy with. I am supportive of a general election day. I am not sure about reducing the number of Senators. There is a terrific workload that States Members undertake and when you are in Scrutiny and you are trying to arrange a meeting and you find all the members of your Panel are engaged in something else, I just wonder who is going to be doing the work if we reduce the number of States Members. I am in favour of a 4-year term of office. I am in favour of election expenses. I am not sure of the reasoning behind Senator Shenton's idea that the Parishes should pay the Constable from central funds for his States work. Does Senator Shenton think that the Constables do less work for the States than ordinary States Members or does Senator Shenton think that he does more work than me? So I am not going to be able to support this. I think that we have got too many choices. On the proposition there are 9 clauses referring to the order of debate when combined with the actual proposition; 9 clauses with Deputy Southern ; 11 clauses P.P.C.; 12 clauses Deputy Le Fondré; and 11 clauses of Deputy Breckon's. It is far too much. There are far too many choices and absolutely no consensus - absolutely no consensus. I would like that P.P.C. were to take this up again and see if we can, perhaps, bring it back in bite-size chunks that we can handle; less choices.  Let us do it bit by bit. I note that the Constables are bringing P.54 for debate in June and this concerns the composition of election to States Assembly, election dates for Constables. It has got 3 clauses; it is simple. I think that the more choice you have got the more lack of consensus you have and so I cannot support this