States Meeting Transcript - 04/07/2007

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 4th JULY 2007

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.....................5

1. Senator M.E. Vibert : ....................................................................5 The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................5

1. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee):.............................................................................5
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..................................................................5
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:................................................5
4. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour:................................................6
5. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter:......................................................6 The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................6
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..............................................6 The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................7
7. Senator T.J. Le Main:....................................................................7 The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................7

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................7

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) Law 200- (P.60/2007).......................7

The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................7 2.1 The Connétable of St. Clement:..........................................................8 The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................8

3. Public Elections: Reduction in Voting Age to 16 (P.63/2007)............................8

The Deputy Bailiff : ............................................................................8 3.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville : ........................................................8

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................11
2. Senator M.E. Vibert : ...................................................................11
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : .....................................................12
4. Senator T.J. Le Main:..................................................................12
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:..................................................12
6. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier:..........................................................14
7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:..............................................................15
8. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................16
9. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John:........................................................16
10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :......................................................17
11. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:...............................................17
12. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter:.....................................................18
13. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:................................................18
14. Senator L. Norman:................................................................20

15. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:..........................................21
16. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:..................................................22
17. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:....................................................23
18. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.....................................................24
19. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:..............................................24
20. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:..................................................25
21. Senator P.F. Routier: ..............................................................25
22. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:.....................................................26
23. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:..........................................27
24. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:..................................................28
25. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................29
26. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..........................................................29
27. The Connétable of St. Peter:.......................................................30
28. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ..................................................31
29. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................31
30. Senator F.E. Cohen:................................................................31
31. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................32
32. The Deputy of Grouville :..........................................................32 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................33

4. Draft Distance Selling (Jersey) Law 200- (P.66/2007) ..................................35

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................35 Deputy P.F.C. Le Claire: .....................................................................37

1. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................37
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................37
3. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................37
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................37
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:..............................................................37
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................38 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................39

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................39

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................39
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................40
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................40

3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................40

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................41
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................41

4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41

2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................42
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................42 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................42

5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................42 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................42
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................43

LUNCH ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED.......................................................44 The Deputy Bailiff : ..........................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT ................................................................44

PUBLIC BUSINESS (Continued)...............................................................45

5. Electoral Registration: Link to Population Register (P.68/2007)......................45

The Bailiff :...................................................................................45 5.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................45

1. Senator L. Norman:....................................................................47 The Bailiff :...................................................................................47
2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................47

3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:..............................................................48
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................48
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson: .................................................................49
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................49
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................50 The Bailiff :...................................................................................50
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...............................................................52
9. Deputy J.J. Huet:.......................................................................53
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:..............................................................53
11. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................54
12. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................56
13. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:...............................................57
14. The Deputy of St. Martin:..........................................................57
15. Deputy S. Pitman: .................................................................58
16. Deputy P.N. Troy :.................................................................58
17. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................59 The Bailiff :...................................................................................60

6. Fields 848, 851 and 853, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence : Committee of Inquiry - appointment of members (P.81/2007)...................................................62

The Bailiff :...................................................................................62 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................63 The Connétable of St. Peter:..................................................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................63 6.1 Connétable G.W. Fisher of St. Lawrence:..............................................63 The Bailiff :...................................................................................64

[Debate proceeded in camera]................................................................64

The Bailiff :...................................................................................64

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...............................................................64
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................65
3. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................65
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................65
5. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................66 The Bailiff :...................................................................................66

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (continued) ....68

7. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee):............................................................................68 The Bailiff :...................................................................................68

1. Senator T.J. Le Main:..................................................................68
2. Senator L. Norman:....................................................................69
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:..............................................................69
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................69 The Bailiff :...................................................................................69
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...............................................................69
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................70 The Bailiff :...................................................................................70
7. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier:......................................................70 The Bailiff :...................................................................................70
8. Deputy I.J. Gorst :......................................................................70
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................71
10. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................71 The Bailiff :...................................................................................71 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................72
12. The Connétable of St. Peter:............................................................72 The Bailiff :...................................................................................72
13. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...............................................................72
14. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................73 The Bailiff :...................................................................................73
15. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................73 The Bailiff :...................................................................................73
16. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................73
17. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................73
18. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour : .....................................................74 The Bailiff :...................................................................................74 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74 The Connétable of St. Peter:..................................................................76 Deputy P.N. Troy :............................................................................76 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................76 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................76 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:......................................................................77 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................77

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................77

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

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

1. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I asked yesterday, but it was suggested that we dealt with the issue of when Public Business should be arranged today. I have to leave the Island later today on States' business and I would like to know what the organisation for future business is. The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee circulated a paper yesterday and it was said it would be dealt with today and I understood it was going to be this morning.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I see. That is not the Order Paper. It is an additional paper, is it? Do Members agree then that this is a matter we should take at the beginning of the session? Is this because some people are going to be away, is that right?

Senator M.E. Vibert :

Certainly, Sir, I am away later but, depending on what decision is made, I am sure I, and many others, will have to rearrange appointments and meetings and I thought the longer time we have to do it, the better. It is not connected with business today so I do not think there is any reason to do it at the end of the day. I think it can be done now just as well as any time.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Well, Chairman, do you wish to speak to this?

1. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement(Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee):

As Members will see on their desk, there is a list of options. What I would recommend to this Assembly is that we meet on Monday, 16th July and start with the business and, on the Tuesday, go on to the normal Tuesday sitting of questions. If we start on the Monday, it will alter the introduction of questions. It will alter the timing of when people can put in the questions. So I think the solution is, on the Monday, 16th July, to start the business and then on the Tuesday, to have a normal start with questions, et cetera, Sir. So that is what I would propose.

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur :

On the Monday there is pencilled a presentation to States' Members on the Annual Business Plan. While this is clearly interesting, I would support the Constable of St. Clement, the President of the P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee), that I think the States' business should take priority and that it would be more sensible to start on the Monday and run through that week. I will do my best to find some other time for presenting the Business Plan to Members but I think, of the solutions, this is the least bad being proposed.

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

If I might comment, Sir, it does seem to me with so much work, I mean we are told the work could take 5 or 6 days or possibly more, on the 17th that a modification of the first option might be in order. I notice that the first option is to agree to meet on Tuesday, 10th July as a continuation of this week's meeting. Unfortunately I believe that Standing Orders preclude us from bringing matters forward if we do it that way. What I would prefer, I think would be the best way forward, would be to have a new meeting on Tuesday, 10th July, which would then allow us to bring matters forward from 17th July because not only will people have to rearrange business that they may have arranged if 17th July goes on for some time, I also am concerned about the quality of decisions being made when people have been sitting for that length of time, Sir. So, personally, I would prefer that we were to meet on Tuesday, 10th July as a new meeting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Just so I am clear, Deputy , if it is a new meeting then there would be question time and so forth as usual?

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

There would, Sir, but, of course, my understanding is that people would already be timed out from putting in written questions. So presumably things would not be too bad.

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

The question of meeting on 10th July was addressed at our last Assembly and I have a long- standing commitment in England which 2 weeks ago I would have been able to maybe amend and, because I have that commitment, and I also happen to know that Senator Walker is out of the Island, I believe that day the point I would say is that we have, as a States Assembly, put aside deliberately every 2 weeks to meet. I personally think Monday makes more sense because people know that week that they should be here. Thank you.

5. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter :

It strikes me that the time we are taking to be deciding when we are going to meet, we would have done the best part of the business of today. Surely, let us get on with it. I accept Senator Vibert has made the remark that he has but, nevertheless, we decided that we should agree on the business at the end of the day. We do not know how far we are going to get. It is possible we shall get through the lot and we should get on with it and stop delaying tactics.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Having started this, we ought to try and finish it. First of all, we have a proposition from Deputy Baudains, if it is seconded, that he wants to put in

The Connétable of St. Peter :

I thought we had a proposition from the Constable

The Deputy Bailiff :

It is a question of what order we take them in and we just have to do this and I think Members must just take a view. If we want to have one or 2 other remarks as to why we should pick one rather than the other, I am happy to let Members speak.

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

Yes, Sir, sorry to add to the comments. The point about our debate, if you like, last time round about the order of business, the first order of business on 17th July is the Social Housing Property Plan. I am not expressing a view either way but Deputy Power, who is out of the Island at the moment, is well under the impression that is going to be debated on 17th July and I believe he does not come back until somewhere around 10th July. I do not think that should be particularly fair on him to rearrange everything for 10th July when he is not aware that that is going to take place.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. Clearly, people would have to be willing to move things to 10th July. So even if the Assembly decides in principle to hold another meeting on 10th July, it will then necessarily decide what to put there. So it may be that this points against Deputy Baudains' proposition but that is a matter for the Assembly.

Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:

If I might respond to that. I think some people may be under the misapprehension that we would bring all the business of 17th July to 10th July. I thought the idea was that we would claw some of it forward. So, obviously, we could select what was likely to please the most number of people.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. I think if the Assembly agrees we should take, first, Deputy Baudains' proposition if it is seconded. Does anybody second it? [Seconded] He wishes to put in an additional day on 10th July. Behind that we will then consider the Chairman's proposition, assuming it is seconded, which is that the Assembly should sit on Monday, 16th July as a special sitting then. So I  am going to put   Deputy Baudains'  proposition  first, so that is whether the Assembly wants to have an extra sitting on 10th July. All those in favour kindly show. Thank you. All those against. That proposition is lost. Very well. So we will come next to the Chairman's proposition which is that the business on 17th July should in fact start on Monday, 16th July; although I think the idea is not question time, that should be held on the Tuesday.

7. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I would request the Assembly, because I still have a lot of information to send out to Members, updated information; I have no problem on the Monday, so long as the Property Plan is taken on the Tuesday, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well, presumably, Chairman, if the Assembly were to agree with this, you would have to discuss with all the various proposers which items should be taken on the Monday and present Members with a suggested running order later today. So the proposition now before the Assembly is to sit on Monday, 16th July. All those in favour kindly show. Those against. That is adopted. So the Assembly will now sit on Monday, 16th July but not with question time. The question time will be on Tuesday and, Chairman, you will circulate a suggested running order in due course? Thank you very much. Can I just add one thing? I assume this has been said before but if there is such a long list, have the Members been invited to consider whether each of the propositions is essential and must go ahead that early? Yes. We are down to the hard core, I see. Very well, thank you.

PUBLIC BUSINESS

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) Law 200- (P.60/2007)

The Deputy Bailiff :

So then we return to today's business, which was the States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) Law, Projet 60 lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 3) Law 200-, a law to amend further the States of Jersey Law 2005. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council have adopted the following Law.

2.1 The Connétable of St. Clement :

At present the regulation has been to confer immunity on witnesses to Panels and P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee). The Chairmen's Committee was concerned that this did not apply to advisors engaged by the Panels. At present this is overcome by the advisor passing the question to a member of the panel to ask. This is clearly unsatisfactory and this amendment will address this problem and would enable regulations to be made to permit the advisor to ask directly. I should draw Members' attention to the fact that advisors will be directing only technical questions to witnesses and will be governed by a draft protocol outlined on page 6 of the report to this proposition. I do not intend to read that out, Sir, but I would draw Members' attention to it. It is quite a strict protocol, which will be in place when the Regulations are in place, Sir. So I would like to propose the citation.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Yes. Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the law? No? All those in favour of adopting the principles kindly show. Those against. The principles are adopted. Deputy Ryan, as chairman of the relevant Scrutiny Panel, do you wish to have this matter referred to a panel? Do you wish to propose the Articles en bloc? Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Articles? All those in favour of adopting Articles 1 and 2 kindly show. Those against. The Articles are adopted. Do you propose the Bill in Third Reading? Seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? All those in favour of adopting the Bill in Third Reading kindly show. Those against. The Bill is adopted in Third Reading.

3. Public Elections: Reduction in Voting Age to 16 (P.63/2007)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We come next to Public Elections, Reduction in Voting Age to 16, Projet 63 lodged by the Deputy of Grouville and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion: (a) to agree that the age at which people become entitled to vote in public elections be reduced from 18 years of age to 16 years of age; and (b) to charge the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring to the Assembly for approval the necessary amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 to give effect to this proposal in time for the 2008 Senatorial Election.

3.1 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

When I first began to think about and research the concept of lowering the voting age to 16, I did so from no particular strongly held viewpoint. If anything, I would have tended to the customary view that 16 year-olds might not be mature enough to exercise this right. This was an uninformed and, even if I say so myself, prejudiced opinion. Having researched this subject, read up about voting reform of this kind, visited schools, the youth forum, listened to the Youth Assembly, spoken to and debated with students, I am now firmly of the opinion that we should most certainly reduce the age to 16. In fact, the more I thought about the subject, the weaker and weaker appeared the grounds for denying 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote and I will explain why later on. But I am particularly convinced that it is even

more important for us in Jersey to make this change, more important that the U.K., for example. Many of our young people leave our shores at the age of 18 and perhaps do not return home for 10 years or so, never having voted in their Island home and having not been engaged in our unique political system before they leave. As we well know, many remain disengaged on their return. We cannot be surprised at this when most people spend their young adulthood in environments in which party politics is the norm, making our non-party system seem strange and difficult to follow. This Assembly has spent a tremendous amount of time and some money recently focusing on the low voter participation we have in Jersey. Most of us recognise that our democracy must be built on active participation by the public. If this does not happen then who knows the consequences and the political and community cohesion when we might face difficult times. We need the credibility and authority to keep our population together. We need, or rather our community needs, our young people to become engaged in our democratic culture. It is very difficult to see how any Member who votes against this proposal will be able to still claim to want our democratic culture reinvigorated. How could we claim that we are striving to improve electoral participation on the one hand while denying this important group of people, Jersey's future, the right to participate? The knee-jerk reaction to this proposition that some Members may have is that 16 year-olds are not mature enough and they have not had enough experience of life to form an opinion. They may not have had the same experiences as a 40 year-old for instance and their views may or may not be more black and white than views that have accumulated over

time but they are nonetheless their views and their opinions. What real objections could we make to the political expression of their views that we could not make to other sections of the community? Our population is diverse and is made up of different backgrounds, ages, cultures and views. We do not deny other groups in our society the right to vote because they may be lacking in this or that. For example, if someone inherits a lot of money and never has to work we do not deny them the right to vote because they are ignorant of the experiences of most people who have to work for a living. If we are going to discriminate in this way, why not just give the vote to self-made people or people who have suffered hard poverty or people who have paid tax for the last 10 years? The fact is we all come to the ballot box from different perspectives, the votes from which then translate into our government, the representatives of our people. Why then should it be that young people are denied representation? The Assembly has to consider many matters, some of which our young people have both far more experience of and a greater future stake in that we do. Take for example the cost of higher education and the prospect of student debt or the kind of employment opportunities that are available, the cost and quality of housing and what that means to our young people in practical terms, what they want the Waterfront to look like, the availability and safety of public transport, recreation facilities for young people, the proposed user-pays charge for policing events like Jersey Live. Why should they not be able to talk about such issues to the politicians of this Island on equal terms, as voters? Thus not only talk but crucially, feel their opinions matter and that they are being listened to as well. One reason I have heard for not giving 16 year-olds the vote was that they will be influenced by their parents or friends. Well, they might be, just as husbands might be influenced by the opinions of their wives [Laughter] or people might be influenced by the firm they work for or the friends they have or the social circle they move in. Across society people are constantly influencing one another. That is what happens in civilised societies. This is one of those arguments which could be applied to any number of sections of society. It cannot be applied exclusively to 16 and 17 year-olds. But let us remember, this argument was indeed used to prevent a particular part of society from having the right to vote. I refer of course to women whom it was claimed were too easily led by their husbands to be trusted with the vote. So we see how illegitimate is the history of this particular argument, one that was used in an attempt

to deny 50 per cent of the population the right to vote. But we live in a modern society and with strength of mind of 16 and 17 year-olds today, together with the sanctuary of the voting booth, we can be confident of their free choice. We should perhaps consider the existing rights and responsibilities of this age group. There is, of course, the well-rehearsed list of life changing decisions those 16 and 17 year-olds can make and may very well be influenced by others. They can lawfully engage in sexual intercourse, regardless of sexuality. They can get married. They can become parents. They can join Her Majesty's Armed Forces. They may be required to pay tax and social security on their earnings. So why not be able to vote? Is it seriously claimed that going into a voting booth to write a few crosses on a piece of paper is a step of greater consequence than these decisions and responsibilities? No, of course it is not. Probably one of the worst arguments I have heard for denying our young people the vote is because they are supposedly not knowledgeable or educated enough or interested in voting. If there were any truth in that argument, that our young people are not knowledgeable or educated in Jersey, their home Island, then that would be our fault. To say that our young people are not interested is a misconception. If denied the opportunity to participate in politics, in our political system and how it relates to everyday issues, they will be uninterested. What is more, to deny them the vote will compound feelings of alienation and irrelevance to their government and reinforce the impression that we are dismissive of the young. But with a small amount of time, young people soon become alert, opinionated and interested in their community. It is a shame my fellow Assistant Minister, Deputy Ben Fox, is not here because he and Deputy Ian Gorst both took part with me in debates in schools. What usually happened was Deputy Fox and I attended all the secondary schools we were invited to, specifically to talk about lowering the voting age to 16. One of us spoke for and the other against the proposition. Perhaps not surprisingly, at first there was a reluctance of the young people to become involved as politics was passed off as boring and for older people. But during the debates, as the issues became real to them, when it became apparent that votes carry influence and can make changes in our society, a different, altogether more effective and enthusiastic discussion took place. There usually followed a lively question and answer

session and then we would take a vote on the question of who wanted the voting age lowered. In every single case, the young people, in different measure, wanted the age limit reduced and I have listed the results of our polls in my report and proposition. When I was first elected, I said I wanted our young people to know more about their Island, their future, their heritage and their history and what has led to our unique community that we are today. It is therefore a source of pride to me to be associated with the new Citizenship Program which we have developed at Education, Sport and Culture. Our young people will at last be educated about their home which will, of course, include their government and the Island's election process. What better way then to engage them fully so they have to think about Island issues, its challenges and its government? What better way to encourage them to get involved in shaping the future than to give them the responsibility of a vote? What better way to make them responsible citizens or, to be more constitutionally correct, subject of this Island? In closing, Sir, I would like to draw Members' attention to the decision taken by the Isle of Man legislature. The House of Keys decided, in February 2006, to lower the voting age to 16 and did so by an overwhelming majority of 19 votes to 4. So clearly did they see the great benefits of involving younger people, the decision was not even close or contentious. I therefore ask my fellow Members to likewise strongly show we recognise the importance of our young people today, to reach out to them. Young people who want to participate in the society in which they live and who want to be responsible and engaged with their community should be able to. If we are at all serious about improving and strengthening our democracy, we cannot deny those that want to participate that right. Sir, I make the proposition.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Yes, Senator Shenton.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

The Deputy of Grouville made a very good speech but, if you analyse it, the arguments were largely generic and could perhaps be applied to 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds or perhaps even 13 year-olds. We are being asked to give young people the responsibility to vote at the age of 16, yet at 16 they do not have the responsibility to drive a car. We want to give them the responsibility to vote; yet they do not have the responsibility to stand for election. They cannot drive a motorcycle. We want to give them the responsibility to vote and yet, if they commit a crime, they cannot be named because they are not mature enough to be named and their actions may be seen as not that of an adult. You cannot register for income tax until you are 17. We want to give them the ability to vote and yet we do not trust them to drink alcohol in a pub. They cannot go to an X-rated film. They cannot go to nightclubs that serve alcohol. I have a couple of teenage daughters and they have no interest in politics. [Interruption] [Laughter] But they would vote for me, thank goodness, because I am their dad but for no other reason, not necessarily because they agree with my policies or anything else. [Interruption] [Laughter] Mind you, I am 46 years old and yesterday afternoon I had no interest in politics either. In fact, by the end of Deputy Baudains' summing up speech, I had very little interest in life itself. [Laughter] What I am trying to say is I do not think there is this groundswell of 16 year-olds waiting to knock at the door and wanting to get the vote. It is just not there. Again, with this, we do not have a set age for anything. Even under Income Support, we are sort of struggling in Income Support as to what age to set different criteria at. It just seems totally illogical to say: "You can vote at 16 but you cannot do many other not quite so responsible jobs or things until you are 17 or 18." I wonder whether it is the lack of electoral reform that this is a last desperate attempt to try and get voting figures up because we cannot address what the public have asked for and reform the States. I am going to draw my speech to a close but, having sat through the debate yesterday, may I remind all Members of the House, and especially the older Members of the House, that under Standing Orders, you should not speak unless you have something new to say. You should not repeat what has already been said and, sadly, I have noticed in the last 12 months or so there has been a distinct movement towards more than one summing up speech, where people go through what people have said before them. People do tend to hold back on speaking. They say: "I do not want to speak yet, I want to hold fire", which means it is very rare that they do say anything even when they stand up. So I would like to see the quality of debate move forward and, if the quality of debate moves forward, then maybe the young would be interested in politics

and then maybe we can readdress this issue in due course.

2. Senator M.E. Vibert :

I will not wait and I hope not to repeat things too much, I have a plane to catch later, but I think this is a very serious issue and I could not disagree more than with the last speaker whose speech was a mixture of confusion and prejudice. [Members: Oh!] The argument against seems to be not mature enough; we do not let them do other responsible things so why should we let 16 year-olds have the vote? I will try not to repeat Deputy Labey 's excellent opening speech, parts of it, but will address the responsible things we do not let 16 year-olds do. Well, we do not let them go in a pub until they are 18. Perhaps that is the reason why we let them vote at 18. Perhaps that is the qualification. It does not seem a very sensible one to me. We do not let them drive a car - no - but we do let 16 year-olds join the Armed Forces and get married, which seem fairly responsible things to allow 16 year-olds to do; to fight for their country and get married. I think the question of maturity is a state of mind not age. You will have some 16 year-olds who are far more mature in their outlook and their development than 18 year-olds. In fact, you could go further up in the age scale and make the same comparison. With Senator Shenton saying he does not believe there will be a groundswell of 16 year-olds, you know, demanding the vote and I agree. Why should we wait for a groundswell? Why should we be forced into it? Why should we go back to the Suffragette movement where women had to fight for the vote? We should allow 16 year-olds who are interested, who deem themselves mature enough, to have the opportunity to vote and that, I think, is what the debate is all about today. It is not a question of expecting every 16 year-old to want to vote. It is about giving those who wish to the opportunity to do so. We have revitalised our citizenship curriculum in our schools and we have put more emphasis, at the wishes of many Members of this Assembly, on Jersey, the Parish system and the States' system. What greater incentive in developing the curriculum than to be able to say to our young people in schools: "and you will be able to vote at 16." That should encourage their interest even more. I think the arguments that I have heard from Senator Shenton, the only arguments that I have heard and can see against allowing this move down to 16, are basically ageist. They are saying: "Oh, do not trust 16 year-olds. Trust them to get married. Trust them to join the Armed Forces. But do not trust them with the vote. Well, I can assure Members here, and I hope some Members who have been in our schools who have debated with our young people will believe that many of them are well-informed and would make very good use of their vote. We at present allow anyone who is 18, who might have just moved to the Island at 16, lived here 2 years and at 18 they can vote or at any age. They move here for 2 years then they can vote. Are we seriously saying that someone who has lived in the Island for 2 years will be better informed that someone who has come through our school system and gone through our citizenship curriculum? Some will be, many will not be because they will not have had the benefit of being taught and understanding the way Jersey

operates. I urge Members, please put your prejudices aside and support this motion.

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I will do Members the courtesy of not repeating things that have been said before but I fully endorse everything said by Senator Shenton. I would also like to add; of recent times we have changed the law to prevent young people under the age of 18 buying cigarettes, so we are definitely sending out mixed messages there. So I would fully support Senator Shenton in this and I will be voting against this motion. Thank you, Sir.

4. Senator T.J. Le Main:

For the sake of repeating it, I tend also to agree with Senator Shenton. I have to say, Sir, that last year I was invited to speak to senior students at Victoria College and the debate was about reducing the voting age to 16 and I  was  very, very surprised at the amount of lack of knowledge by the senior students. Most of them did not know who their Deputies were, their Constables and Senators, and the lack of knowledge was quite incredible. But the interesting thing was, Sir, after much discussion, the students felt that reducing the voting age was not an appropriate matter on their view and they all voted - apart from about 4, I think it was, or 5 - they all, virtually unanimously, supported maintaining the status quo. So, on that basis and the very good argument put forward by Senator Shenton, I do feel, Sir, that this would be a little bit early at this stage in supporting this proposition.

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

I think it is unfortunate that the arguments are not really based on any sound evidence so far. It has just been a view that Members have got or have brought into the Chamber, which will probably leave us all voting with our original beliefs when we came in this morning. It is a pity because I thought the Deputy of Grouville 's speech was particularly good this morning

and I would like to congratulate her on that speech because it was well informed and it was well researched as well. Senator Le Main makes the point that most of the children in a particular classroom that were engaged in this discussion did not know who their Deputies were. Well, most of the public do not know who their politicians are, regardless of age. If we deny all people the right to vote then we deny all of them the interest in the issues, all of them the interest helping to shape their own futures. I remember when I first came into this Chamber at the age of about 10 or 11 and I walked through, with a class, this very building and I looked at the different desks around the room as part of a class tour. I was very engaged at that age and very determined that in the future I would like to join the States and that was at a very, very young age. Some people may not be happy with that but there we are. Because of the fact that I was engaged at that young age meant that politics did play an important part in shaping things I did. I took the logical step that, not having the greatest of educations and not having the greatest of funds, one route into the respectable background that one would need for a politician would be to join the military and then have that on my CV (curriculum vitae) when I put myself forward for election. I determined, as at the time a marine cadet, that perhaps the way forward would be join the Royal Marines because it did seem that that regiment was held in high esteem by many people. So at the age of 16 I joined the Royal Marines and that decision to join the Royal Marines was based upon the fact that I wanted to, one day, have the CV with that on so that I could put myself forward for public office. Now, my politics may not be everybody's politics but they are some people's politics and I may not speak for everybody on every issue but I do sometimes speak for some people on some of the issues. People talk about the percentages of people that will be voting and how will that look. I would like us to take our eyes off the bottom line for once and look at the individuals that are going to be affected. It is true if we give 16 year-olds the vote we will also be possibly affecting the percentages of turnout, dependent upon whether or not they or their peers or their family and elder members bother to show up at the next elections. We all have a duty and responsibility to make sure that the next elections, if possible, reinvigorate interest in

politics in Jersey. If we send out a message today that we are just a bunch of old fuddy- duddies stuck in 1907, this is 2007. Senator Le Main makes the point "not yet, we are not ready"; when will we be ready to acknowledge that the younger people today have a far more diverse background of knowledge, due to our education systems and our communication systems, than many of us had at their age? Most of the young people these days have a wealth of knowledge that far exceeds that of their grandparents thanks to the modern forms of communications that I mentioned. It also seems ludicrous to try to align this decision to empower  these  young people with their ability to take  actions  that  might produce  self- harming; for example, cigarettes and alcohol. We choose specifically not to allow them to do that because we do not want that type of attitude in any age of our society and eventually, as we move and progress forward, cigarettes will cease to have a place in this society at any age. We probably do not allow them to parachute until they are 18 or a certain height or something but it is a ridiculous notion that you should stop all of them from voting because some of them are not ready. Some of them certainly are ready, some of them certainly are empowered and some of them certainly do want to vote. Some 18 year-olds can vote but they do not. Some 28 year-olds can vote but they do not. Many ages of people can vote but they do not. I would put it to Members that the reason that they do not is because we do not empower society. If we empower them at a younger age, they are more likely to be connected to their own destinies and their own futures than if they are dragged into it at the age of 35 or 45. At the last election I stopped a lady to say: "Thank you for coming out - la, la, la." She jumped out of a taxi, she says: "I have come to vote. I have never done it before." She was about 40 years of age. She says: "I do not know what to do, how do I do it? I have come to vote for you." Now, why did it take that lady so long to get engaged in politics? I questioned her on the way out and she said: "Until now, there were no issues that were before me that I wanted to actively participate in but you are striking a cord with me and I want to be involved and I want to affect my future; because you are saying this, I have come out to vote for that particular reason." She may not have agreed with the rest of the things I was saying but one particular issue she agreed with and that will be the same for people of all ages in any year. In any given year, different issues; in any given month different issues will come to the fore that people will have an accord with: whether it be high hedges or low water fishing or flats or this particular issue, people will be interested. I think to just turn around and say: "Oh, young people, they blah, blah, blah," it is just ridiculous. There are some young people out there that do want to actively participate and I think it would be a great shame if we did not allow those that do want to participate to have that opportunity. I certainly hope - I certainly hope - that Members will realise that we will be empowering for the next election a lot of young people, possibly by agreeing this today and setting out in the world a new mark for Jersey, because it is quite a mark to do this. We will reinvigorate politics and the interest in politics across the Island at all ages. I certainly do hope that Deputy Labey is successful in getting this through today.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That is the second occasion; Senator Vibert also referred to her as Deputy Labey - it is of course the Deputy of Grouville .

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Sorry, Sir. I beg your pardon, the Deputy of Grouville . I beg your pardon. On that note, Sir, I would just like to say I congratulate the Deputy for the research she has done and bringing this issue before us today. I hope Members can support it.

6. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

I must congratulate the lady Deputy of Grouville for bringing this matter before this Assembly in an attempt to sort out the different age groupings that we appear to have in this Island. Sir, I think most of us have heard the saying: "Seen that, been there, bought the tee shirt." Well, I, for once, can completely agree with that and why can I say that so confidently? The reason is, Sir, that I got married at 16 and so I have been there, seen that, et cetera, et cetera. I know that my poor husband is still moaning that he is on his third life sentence with no time off for good behaviour but I can always remember, Sir, what I always thought was the unfairness of 3 ages that used to exist. That was the 16, 18 and 21 for rules and regulations, but please let me explain further. One could get married at 16, with your parents' permission. But if they refused because they thought you were too young, one only had one alternative. You could elope. Now, I know that sounds very romantic. It is not because I did just that. I remember the train stopped at Glasgow, Sir, and when we got off I could not understand a word anybody was talking about [Laughter] but that is another story. So, where was I? Yes, 16: could get married, could have babies - I could have babies. At 18 I could go off to fight and die for my country but I still could not vote, I could not rent a flat, I could not buy a house or make a will out and I still needed to have my passport signed by an adult. That could only happen when I was 21. I will come back to that. So, there we are: 16, married, no babies as of yet, but I definitely thought I knew it all. I was an adult. So what was the first grown up decision that I made? Well, Sir, believe it or not it was not to pay an insurance. In those days, one could go on one's husband's stamp and this was good value as far as I was concerned and now, Sir, I would have to say: "How did that first grown up decision work out?" Well, I now know that I will never, ever receive a pension in my own right. A gentleman a short while ago did a survey on States' Members and one of the questions was about pensions and what one would eventually receive and I had to tell him that

I could only hope that my husband did not want to put me in for part exchange for a younger edition because, if he did, I was going to be in trouble. I guess that was not a very good, grown up first decision, Sir. Sir, a few years ago the age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18. So previously we had had the 3: 16, 18 and 21. At least we were now down to 2: 16 and 18. So, now let us go to the age of 18. A short while ago I believe we were told we had to get our laws into order and to reduce the age to 16 for consenting, same-sex partners. As the law stood, it was against human rights and if one could get married at 16, though still with parents' consent, the same right should be enjoyed by all. The law was passed, though I still believe, Sir, most women were not convinced that their sons were as mature as their daughters; but the experts said the law was the law. So now we can all have sex at 16 with whomever we like as long as they are over 16. But still cannot get married without permission, cannot vote, cannot die for our country, cannot buy a house or make a will. I am not sure about the passport bit. But that will have to change under Human Rights eventually. So what can we gain by bringing the age down to 16? Well, Sir, the one thing I remember that really used to annoy me, that when I could smoke at 16 but I could not go into a pub to have a drink until I was 18. Well, I guess, as we have now reduced the age of consensual sex and if we reduce the age of voting, the smoking and drinking - we only put it up a short while ago - will, as night follows day, shortly follow and reduce to 16. Well, the Treasury, I should imagine, will be happy as there will be more import duty to pay and we all know that young people like to experiment so that will be one extra income. What else could we do? Well, at the moment we have juvenile courts, up to the age of 18, but that can reduce to 16. If they are old enough, as said before, to vote, they must be also responsible for criminal offences and be named publicly and, of course, they will be able to go to prison at 16 instead of a remand home. So there is another saving, this time for Home Affairs. What else will we be able to recoup funds on? Well, there is Housing. At the moment, when a young person reaches 18, the rent gets increased for the family but that would drop to 16. What else? Well, we have driving at 17; that would bring extra money in if we make it 16 you can drive. So I leave you, Sir, with the retired Senator Lakeman's story about when he was at Hautlieu. They ran an election campaign in 1984/1985 and asked many politicians to go and speak to the students. I believe they ran it extremely well, exactly as it would be run in public life, and then they would vote. I asked Advocate Lakeman yesterday to confirm the result again and it was quite funny as he said he had only just recently found the original papers and he told me the students had voted, and I did check it out with Senator Le Main, that Senator Le Main would be equivalent of Chief Minister for Life when they voted, Sir. I would, Sir, that these could well be the eventual results of [Laughter] lowering the voting age to 16. I think I got that slightly mixed up towards the end, Sir. Thank you very much, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator Le Main may change the way he is going to vote. [Laughter]

7. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

Well, firstly, I can assure Members that the Minister for Health and Social Services would have issued comments against this proposition by the Deputy of Grouville if he considered this proposal was dangerous to health. This proposition has been compared with having a smoking ban until 18 years old. There is no comparison. That is a red herring. So, Sir, I totally support this proposition. If young people become engaged in the democratic process from 16 years onwards, it is far more likely that, whether they leave Jersey to study and stay in England or, hopefully, return or whether they remain in Jersey, the engagement from the age of 16 onwards will mean they will continue, or certainly more likely continue, to vote and to be interested in the political process. Sir, I spoke to a member of the Manx delegation at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Belfast this May. As has been said, this provision to vote at 16 was introduced there and I believe that an election in the Isle of Man has since taken place. The delegate did tell me that it is seen as a very successful provision there. So, Sir, I will most certainly be supporting this proposition. I urge other Members of this House to do likewise. Thank you, Sir.

8. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just an interesting point, Sir, that I think Members would like to be aware of. It is an important principle of democracy I believe that people can vote from among their peers, from among their equals, their choice of representative for government. It is a fact that the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey does not permit anybody under the age of 18 to sit in this Assembly, so you have to be above the age of 18 to sit in this Assembly, and I put it to Members that we will empower people to vote but not for their peers and not for their equals. I suspect that the Deputy of Grouville has missed a point here and I do not think we should enfranchise people who are unable to take a seat in this Assembly and I ask Members to consider that when voting.

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

Having read this proposition thoroughly, at first I was of the opinion that perhaps this was not such a great idea but reading the Deputy of Grouville 's proposal, to me I cannot see anything against it really. It does empower young people in a way that we say they should be. They should be interested in politics but it is difficult to engage them. We do have a high proportion of young people that leave the Island and go on to further education, 45 per cent, many of whom do not come back for many years. I was one of those. I left the Island at 19 and did not come back until my late 20s. I did not vote in Jersey until I was in my 30s because I was disengaged from the process and the most fascinating thing about this proposition, I thought, was that analogy that this affecting those people registering to vote and I had not registered to vote. In other countries it is automatic. In France, at 18 you are automatically registered. You do not have to do anything. They know you exist already. They know you were born in the country. There is joined up thinking, joined up IT systems, and they register you automatically. That is something which I do hope we will have here eventually, with the Population Office being linked to the Office of the Registrar. We are working on it at the moment. But without that, at the moment, they fall through the loop. I was one of them. How many others are there? Now, some seem fearful that these 16 year- olds will vote. God forbid, they will vote and they might disagree with some of the old fossils that they think are in here. I count myself perhaps as one of them in their eyes. The problem is that they are not engaged with the process and this would, I believe, engage them. The arguments against it I believe are weak. They are going to be influenced by their parents. Have you ever tried influencing a 16 year-old? I was one once. We all were. A number of us have teenage children, maybe even teenage grandchildren. Teenagers at 16 and 17 are very difficult to influence. They have their own mind and they want to express it. So influencing them by their parents, I am afraid, is a non-argument. We definitely need more joined up thinking. We definitely need more people to register and this is just one way of doing it. In the Isle of Man elections, there were 2,000 people that qualified in addition to the year before because of this change in regulation but only 200 of them voted. That is not going to make any major difference as to the policies that we set in this House because, unfortunately, no matter how hard you try and engage them, they are not going to vote probably until they are 18, 19 plus anyway. The issue here, in my mind, it is more important that they register so that in later life they do vote because far too many are falling through the net. That is the problem that P.P.C. were highlighting recently in many of their proposals, is engaging the voter and getting more of them to vote. If you start early with engagement, with the civic studies that are now going on at our schools and colleges as well, this is all part of that process. So I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever to vote against this and I think we are going to look rather daft if we do. Thank you, Sir.

10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

On the face of the proposition, it sounds really good that we should be looking at reducing the age of voting but I do have a few concerns. One big question in the proposition, and it states: "falling levels of participation in elections" and then later in the same sentence it comments: "Why did we not bring younger people into the electoral process a long time before?" But by approving this proposition, are we saying it is the answer to low numbers of people voting? I think not. I wish it were that easy. It just seems to be moving the goal post without addressing the problem. I totally agree that raising the awareness of the political issues and the democratic process is a good thing but, before we reduce the age, I would like to be convinced that there is more education in the schools and that the young people really want it. I applaud the new Citizenship programme the Education Department is doing in the schools but does it address why we vote, the ramifications of voting for this person or that person's policies and how they would affect the Island? Most of us who are here today have taken part in the Citizenship programme over the last few months and it is good to be part of that. We need to do more to engage with younger people but I would like to ask, is it also happening in our youth clubs? At 16, do our young people want to vote? Has this proposition come through the Youth Council or the Youth Assembly? Are they supportive? Have we been lobbied by young people? Are there any comments? Are there any comments? Are there any students up in the gallery? There is one but I think he is at university. [Laughter] I thought I would like to ask some of the young people at a youth club their thoughts. I just asked them some basic questions; not very scientific I must admit, but just to give me a flavour. Do they know who the Chief Minister is? Well, one of them said: "Can I phone a friend?" "No, but I have heard of Frank Walker ." I thought that was good. Quite a few did say Frank Walker , some said Senator Syvret and one said Gordon Brown. [Laughter] What do politicians do? "They make decisions for people." "Do not know." "Put across what they want changed in the country." "People to lead somebody." So that was quite positive. Why do people vote at elections? "So they can have their say." "To get new politicians." "To decide what leader is of all the things." "Do not know." "People to lead somebody so that everybody gets a choice." So, quite positive there really. Where do you hear about all these issues? "In history." "Went on a trip with school." "My mum." "News." "Nobody." "Not interested." "School. No, actually the TV." Would you vote if you could at 16? "Yes, to wind up politicians that I do not like because every vote counts." "No, because there is no point." "No, because I am not interested in that kind of thing." "No." "Do not know." "I do not know how to vote." "Might do if I knew more." So, as you see, Sir, there is some awareness in the schools but I would like to see more work and broadening of the Citizenship Program in the schools and in the youth clubs and how that program is going to be audited before I am

convinced to vote. Thank you, Sir.

11. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

The Deputy of Grouville 's report has a number of bullet points, which I think are very interesting because I think they highlight the attitude of many old people - myself included - in the Island. If we look at those bullet points you see 16 year-olds are not knowledgeable enough to be given the vote. Well, are 18 year-olds knowledgeable enough, in our opinion? Are 20 year-olds knowledgeable enough? 16 year-olds could be subjected to pressure to vote in a particular way by their parents but then so could 18 year-olds, so could 20 year-olds. They have peers. Their peers are going to encourage them to vote in a particular manner. If we have political parties, the political party is going to encourage them to vote in a particular manner. 16 year-olds are not interested in voting. Well, I would suggest to the Assembly that

there are a whole load of 40, 50, 60, 70 year-olds who are not interested in voting. The figures show it because, even though the parishes send out an annual form and 2 annual reminders, there is still a whole load of people who contact the Parish Hall and say: "I do not want to be on the electoral register", so they do not want to vote; so 16 year-olds would not be any different to grown-ups. 16 year-olds are not mature enough. [Interruption] I have been challenged about grown-ups and I think it is a term that we use. It is a term that is well recognised, that at 16 when you are at school you are not grown up but at 20, 25 you are grown up. It is maybe something we need to question, whether people are grown up at that stage. It says that 16 year-olds are not mature enough. Well, I think that may be right. Some may not be mature enough but I would suggest to Members that some 18 year-olds are not necessarily mature enough to be voting if that is the way we feel. I think that we are in danger here of falling into the trap, which the general public use, of saying: "16 year-olds: you cannot talk to them, they are rude, they get up to all sorts of mischief." I am sorry, that is not the case. Yes, a small minority do but generally 16 year-olds that I speak to are well mature. They are well informed. Yes, they do not know about voting because the system so far has not led them into wanting to know that at 16. If we bring in 16 year-old voting, then I would hope that the recently established citizenship part of the curriculum will ensure that, at 16 years old, they are properly aware of what the issues are. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am very keen to get younger people involved and I am looking at the moment to establishing a panel of young people to come to the Parish Hall at St. Ouen and to look at the issues that I have to deal with on a weekly basis; not necessarily to make those decisions but to make them aware of the decisions that I have to make on behalf of the public. I think, Sir, that we are in danger of looking for reasons not to do this instead of looking for reasons to

support it.

12. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

I rise firstly to say that there has been no upsurge of people talking to me in my Parish with regard to lowering the age to 16. On the contrary, most adults, grown up people that have spoken to me, are expressing their own concerns that we should not lower the age to 16. But my main purpose for standing is to correct a statement made by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture who said in this Assembly that you could join the military to fight for your country at the age of 16. Sir, as a former Royal Air Force officer of 27 years standing, I wish to correct that very clearly. You cannot. At the age of 16 you can join the military as a cadet. You can join the military as an apprentice. You cannot fight for your country in an operational theatre until you are at least 18. Going back to joining the military, unfortunately you cannot elope into the military but you can join at 16 with parental permission. I just wish to make that absolutely clear for any people who might have children or youngsters at the age of 16, joining the military, that they will not be going into an operational service.

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

We have heard quite a wide range of views already but I think from time to time we have drifted off the central subject. The central subject, I think, and the  motivation for this particular proposition is one of engagement of the public with the electoral and democratic process. We have heard from Senator Le Main in particular, but from others as well, that young people are simply ignorant of the political process. They do not know about the process and they are not engaged. [Interruption] Fine. I paraphrase and I accept what you are saying but surely the point made by the Deputy of Grouville is that this probably is the single most effective way to engage and motivate those particular people. It is all very well saying: "You should be interested in politics." Of course. We, in this Chamber, think everybody should be fascinated by it and dying to get to use their vote. They are not, as we have heard said, and these young people are no more engaged than the rest of the population

and, again, that has been used as an argument - you know, 2,000 in the Isle of Man, only 200 turned out to vote - that it is not worth doing. Why bother? Again, that is a very thin argument. The results of laying this seed down now may not be felt, may not been seen at the next election. I doubt very much that we will get any greater participation, or we may, among 16, 17, 18 year-olds in 18 months time than we do from the rest of the population. But the election after that and the election after that and the election after that, I think we might see the results. We might reap the dividend of making a move now that will produce long-term and much greater interest and participation, active participation, in our democracy. That is what we have to nurture, I believe, by voting for this particular motion because the central argument that to engage the 16, 17, 18 year-old you have to give them a stake. You have to give them a stake. There is no point saying to them: "You should be interested, why are you not?" because they can simply say to you: "And have I got the vote?" and the answer will be: "No." If we do not allow this liberalising and empowering motion through, the next answer will be: "And we have just recently stopped you getting the vote because some people thought you should have it and we decided no." Is that the message we want to be giving to 17 year- olds? I do not believe it is, while at the same time saying why are you not interested when you are 25? Because the argument is, yes, many of our young people do go away for lengthy periods and eventually they come back - never having participated in our electoral system, having learnt about party politics, having learnt about different systems but not engaged with ours. Let us get them early and they may retain that sense of engagement and they may come back and vote and get engaged. I remember when I first had the vote and it was a significant moment in my life. I was away at university and I was aware that at last I had the vote, the commitment - I am a strange creature - the political commitment I had had for a number of years, back then - what a sad creature indeed - could be put into action. I was only disappointed at the time, because I was in Guildford [Laughter], a remarkably Conservative part of the country, and there was no Labour Party candidate standing, but I did go there, and I reluctantly went to vote for a Liberal Democrat to unseat the Tory. Sadly, he failed miserably; he got nowhere near, but at least I did my bit and it was a satisfying moment. But that feeling, I think, is significant and could be made more significant for many of your youngsters. In terms of the commitment as well, you listen to most 16, 17, 18 year-olds. They are fantastically committed to all sorts of things. You talk to them about green issues, about the environment - bang. Half an hour later they will still be talking at you, some of them will. Talk to them about racism: for and against, whatever, but as an issue. Talk to them about discrimination. Talk to them about the bus service and, again, expect another 20 minutes. Yes. Of course they are committed. What they do not have is the ability to put that commitment into action because we say they cannot have the vote. I think we have the opportunity today to allow them that privilege. No. No, that is the wrong word, is it not; that right, that basic right. Another point, we are told again there is no groundswell, there is not rioting in the streets from 16, 17, 18 year-olds, a clamour to get the vote, but look at the figures in the report. When talked to about these issues from 14 year-olds up to 18 year-olds, all of them saying: "Yes, please, give us the vote." So if you ask and you ask properly, yes, they will say .. They are not hammering on the door but they will say: "Yes, we do want the vote" and I believe they do deserve the vote. Just for a minute I want to address Deputy Huet's point that she managed to suggest, I think, that we should not be voting for this